Inside of the Derelict
Dave Vibert
The Inside of the Derelict was designed by H.R. Giger I know.
Then for the Aliens hive they kind of reused the art,
Now, was the inside of the derelict supposed to have been 'changed' by the
aliens?
You know, like the hive in aliens with the excreted resin?
The whole ship? it's a little hard to belive. Or that the aliens copied
the architecture of the derelict for their hive?
HMM? Am i just really stupid and don't see something here?
--
HiYa thEre!!!
Wmvrrvrrmm
In article <mac-fan-1209...@dyn37.tc1.riverhead.i-2000.net>,
mac...@mac.in.heaven (Dave Vibert) writes:
Well, if we go by your question, maybe we're dealing with the inside and
the outside of the derelict being altered by the alien creatures because
everything about the alien ship was indeed biomechanoid. Giger had the
ideas that the ship was designed in the way that it looked, because of
Giger's own biomechanic approach to creativity. And there were no special
rules set up, it seemed that for a while they thought that they made a
mistake by having Giger design both the derelict and the alien, and in
terms of logic about the film and it's designs, this is almost true.
But there have been ideas that are designed to sort the mess out and then
they are naturally unbalanced. There wasn't a place for such ideas to be
worked out in a sequal.
So I think that we may as well say that the thing is made out of 'alien'
material and this is hoe they built it when the ship was new and functiona
in some way
The alien excreted a kind of resin in the first film to make a nest where
it had Brett's and Dallas' bodies and basicly Cameron used this concept and
ripped a whole nyunch of ideas from Giger's book on the making of alien,
including some aspects of the egg layer from the Giger painting entitled
Alien Monster 4.
So in Fantastic Films magazine Ridley Scott agreed with the possibility
when questioned that there was the possibility that the derelict was
created in the same way.
He also had an idea that the Alien was carrying the genes of the Space
Jockey and added nothing to that( perhaps because he didn't have any solid
ideas about it), when he mentioned that the Facehugger took genes from it's
former host and the mixed them with the following host.
It might be that there was the instinct and ability to excrete resin to
build like this passed from the Space Jockey's genes, and so they did in
some manner and built similar structures but didn't possess the
technological capability.
Larry Campbell
In article <mac-fan-1209...@dyn37.tc1.riverhead.i-2000.net>,
mac...@mac.in.heaven (Dave Vibert) wrote:
> The Inside of the Derelict was designed by H.R. Giger I know.
> Then for the Aliens hive they kind of reused the art,
> Now, was the inside of the derelict supposed to have been 'changed' by the
> aliens?
> You know, like the hive in aliens with the excreted resin?
> The whole ship? it's a little hard to belive. Or that the aliens copied
> the architecture of the derelict for their hive?
> HMM? Am i just really stupid and don't see something here?
>
> --
> HiYa thEre!!!
Well, judging by the way the Aliens were "redecorating" the power plant
in Aliens, I'd hafta say that they indeed had changed the interior of the
derelict
to suit their needs.
Sort of like wasps, aren't they?
-L
--
Diplomacy: the fine art of saying "nice doggie" while you're looking for a rock.
Wmvrrvrrmm
In article <?digman?-13099713...@206.109.29.63>, ?digman?@neosoft.com
(Larry Campbell) writes:
>Well, judging by the way the Aliens were "redecorating" the power plant
>in Aliens, I'd hafta say that they indeed had changed the interior of the
>derelict
>to suit their needs.
>Sort of like wasps, aren't they?
What about the exterior of the derelict then, which was designed with
biomechanoid features. The aliens didn't make a fantastic job of altering
the interior of the powerstation to make it look like the interior of the
derelict.
Also the Space Jockey had biomechanoid features in it's body structure and
it's seat structure. Do you feel that the aliens from Aliens designed these
too when they took over the ship.
Larry Campbell
In article <19970913082...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
wmvrr...@aol.com (Wmvrrvrrmm) wrote:
> So in Fantastic Films magazine Ridley Scott agreed with the possibility
> when questioned that there was the possibility that the derelict was
> created in the same way.
>
> He also had an idea that the Alien was carrying the genes of the Space
> Jockey and added nothing to that( perhaps because he didn't have any solid
> ideas about it), when he mentioned that the Facehugger took genes from it's
> former host and the mixed them with the following host.
>
> It might be that there was the instinct and ability to excrete resin to
> build like this passed from the Space Jockey's genes, and so they did in
> some manner and built similar structures but didn't possess the
> technological capability.
You're making entirely too much out of a sci-fi horror adaptation of
A. Christie's "Ten Little Indians."
I'm surely there were a lot of interesting concepts being bandied about
during the creation of the film, as well as gaps in continuity and logic
big enough to drive a Mac truck through.
The film's intended purpose was to shock and entertain, not to be dissected,
and anything left hanging in the air can be chalked up to artistic license
(something sorely abused in the third film).
Larry Campbell
In article <19970913182...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
wmvrr...@aol.com (Wmvrrvrrmm) wrote:
> In article <?digman?-13099713...@206.109.29.63>, ?digman?@neosoft.com
> (Larry Campbell) writes:
>
> >Well, judging by the way the Aliens were "redecorating" the power plant
> >in Aliens, I'd hafta say that they indeed had changed the interior of the
> >derelict
> >to suit their needs.
> >Sort of like wasps, aren't they?
>
> What about the exterior of the derelict then, which was designed with
> biomechanoid features. The aliens didn't make a fantastic job of altering
> the interior of the powerstation to make it look like the interior of the
> derelict.
Read my post again.
The I-N-T-E-R-I-O-R of the derelict and the fusion reactor were altered
in much the same way as an eave or hole in your wall might be changed by
wasps fashioning a nest.
The exterior of the derelict, like the reactor, was left untouched.
Watch the movies again.
> Also the Space Jockey had biomechanoid features in it's body structure and
> it's seat structure. Do you feel that the aliens from Aliens designed these
> too when they took over the ship.
He, and the chair were of a different design than the structures found
inside the alien
nesting sites.
Look closely at the entrance the egg chamber in the ALIEN.
Does it look to be of the same design as the ship?
Watch the movies again.
Wmvrrvrrmm
In article <?digman?-14099700...@digital-02-169.hou.neoworld.net>,
?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) writes:
>
>You're making entirely too much out of a sci-fi horror adaptation of
>A. Christie's "Ten Little Indians."
>I'm surely there were a lot of interesting concepts being bandied about
>during the creation of the film, as well as gaps in continuity and logic
>big enough to drive a Mac truck through.
>The film's intended purpose was to shock and entertain, not to be dissected,
>and anything left hanging in the air can be chalked up to artistic license
>(something sorely abused in the third film).
>
Then you're missing the logic that was going on in the background about
the excitement surrounding the idea of biomechanics that seems to go
through films that Giger works on, and how it transforms into a kind of a
mythical experience just pulling together all the theories tat have erupted
through the works of Giger.
There's a correct way of dealing with the whole vision that seems to still
sit out there and then there are piles of ways that seem totally wrong, and
this who stream of thinking erupted through the movie Alien and well,
that's where it's home is, and there are a certain group of ideas that have
to be appreciated to be closed to the untainted origin .
The whole business about establishing the ideas in the movie and trying to
be true to them was to make something that would linger and entertain in an
intellectual way in terms of themes and ideas. For me , every time, it's
like going on an archeological dig, and the way that Scott evolved his
ideas seems to show a radical state of evoution and then there is a
complete vision being described, and it does have something to say to me
and I'm doing my best to keep the vision pure and unblurred as far as I can
realise it.
William Miller
> Well, judging by the way the Aliens were "redecorating" the power plant
> in Aliens, I'd hafta say that they indeed had changed the interior of the
> derelict
> to suit their needs.
> Sort of like wasps, aren't they?
I personally felt that the resemblance of the powerplant nest to the
derelict interior was a glaring mistake, pure and simple - committed in
the name of recycling of some of the signature images of the original.
Larry Campbell
In article <wsmiii-1409...@clv-oh15-22.ix.netcom.com>,
wsm...@ix.netcom.com (William Miller) wrote:
> I personally felt that the resemblance of the powerplant nest to the
> derelict interior was a glaring mistake, pure and simple - committed in
> the name of recycling of some of the signature images of the original.
Why?
There was terrific continuity between the first and second films.
I think the hive interior was placed in the second with true cinematic
license: a foreboding image of the horror that awaited the Marines.
Larry Campbell
In article <19970914083...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
wmvrr...@aol.com (Wmvrrvrrmm) wrote:
> Then you're missing the logic that was going on in the background about
> the excitement surrounding the idea of biomechanics that seems to go
> through films that Giger works on, and how it transforms into a kind of a
> mythical experience just pulling together all the theories tat have erupted
> through the works of Giger.
>
>
> There's a correct way of dealing with the whole vision that seems to still
> sit out there and then there are piles of ways that seem totally wrong, and
> this who stream of thinking erupted through the movie Alien and well,
> that's where it's home is, and there are a certain group of ideas that have
> to be appreciated to be closed to the untainted origin .
>
> The whole business about establishing the ideas in the movie and trying to
> be true to them was to make something that would linger and entertain in an
> intellectual way in terms of themes and ideas. For me , every time, it's
> like going on an archeological dig, and the way that Scott evolved his
> ideas seems to show a radical state of evoution and then there is a
> complete vision being described, and it does have something to say to me
> and I'm doing my best to keep the vision pure and unblurred as far as I can
> realise it.
Let's hope the fourth film remains true to the ALIEN mythos.
I was disappointed with the third....
William Miller
In article <?digman?-15099719...@digital-02-147.hou.neoworld.net>,
?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) wrote:
> > I personally felt that the resemblance of the powerplant nest to the
> > derelict interior was a glaring mistake, pure and simple - committed in
> > the name of recycling of some of the signature images of the original.
>
> Why?
> There was terrific continuity between the first and second films.
> I think the hive interior was placed in the second with true cinematic
> license: a foreboding image of the horror that awaited the Marines.
>
It works on a dramatic level, but simply makes no sense from the point of
view of continuity of the fictional universe. The "wet black ribs" look
belongs to the derilict, pure and simple, and was not, IMHO, a product of
the Alien. It has no business showing up again in the Alien nest in the
power plant.
The hypotheses that the derelict spaceship was actually "lined" in some
way by the Aliens is an interesting alternative... But no cigar, IMHO.
Another alternative that just occurred to me: the Aliens actually looted
the derilict for raw materials for their nest. Could be. But its a
butt-ugly, after the fact construction, too. I just think Cameron goofed,
or didn't care all that much about fine tuned continuity.
(Its been awhile since I've seen either film; I'll have a lot to chew on
next time through.)
Bulistik
>> Well, judging by the way the Aliens were "redecorating" the power plant
>> in Aliens, I'd hafta say that they indeed had changed the interior of the
>> derelict
Uh, huh. Sorry. Don't mean to be rude or nothin', but THE "ALIENS"
HIVE AND THE DERILICT SHIP LOOKED NOTHING LIKE EACH OTHER!!!! Sorry. Take
a look at the movie or stills from Aliens. The hive is very much like
dried goo (secreted resin) Very organic and as if someone had pasted organs
to a wall. Compare this to the derilict ship, which is VERY mechanical.
Yes, there are a few coincidences, but the ship has basically one pattern
repeated over and over again (chest element with lines inbetween)
and the hive looks like someone blew their nose in it. I see nothing
mechanical about this, except for where the power station is showing
through. Sorry, just had to say that.
Brian
William Miller
In article <19970916063...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
buli...@aol.com (Bulistik) wrote:
> >> Well, judging by the way the Aliens were "redecorating" the power plant
> >> in Aliens, I'd hafta say that they indeed had changed the interior of the
> >> derelict
>
> Uh, huh. Sorry. Don't mean to be rude or nothin', but THE "ALIENS"
> HIVE AND THE DERILICT SHIP LOOKED NOTHING LIKE EACH OTHER!!!! Sorry.
I got to disagree, mon, though will take a look at both movies again
sometime soon. My recollection is that, while the nest is disorganized
(pasted up, like you said) relative to the highly organized derelict, many
elements of the artwork used are extremely similar. Plausible, but
butt-ugly explanation: Maybe the Aliens have been borrowing materials
from the derelict in constructing their nest. After all, is still there.
Wmvrrvrrmm
In article <19970916063...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
buli...@aol.com (Bulistik) writes:
> Uh, huh. Sorry. Don't mean to be rude or nothin', but THE "ALIENS"
>HIVE AND THE DERILICT SHIP LOOKED NOTHING LIKE EACH OTHER!!!! Sorry. Take
>a look at the movie or stills from Aliens. The hive is very much like
>dried goo (secreted resin) Very organic and as if someone had pasted organs
>to a wall. Compare this to the derilict ship, which is VERY mechanical.
>Yes, there are a few coincidences, but the ship has basically one pattern
>repeated over and over again (chest element with lines inbetween)
>and the hive looks like someone blew their nose in it. I see nothing
>mechanical about this, except for where the power station is showing
>through. Sorry, just had to say that.
>Brian
I don't want to be rude either but the Alien derelict was designed to be
organic. the outside of the ship looks organic and the interior walls of
the ship are organic, and then they were built in an alien way, and we
don't know how , but Scott looked at the possibility that aliens had built
it using their methods of secreting material, but it was created in an
organised way by intelligent creatures, and then the aliens in Aliens
weren't able to be so technically creative, because they were an isolated
community without the contact of their own origins, maybe. Through handed
down information they might have been able to develop technical skills.
Wmvrrvrrmm
In article <wsmiii-1609...@clv-oh17-07.ix.netcom.com>,
wsm...@ix.netcom.com (William Miller) writes:
> Maybe the Aliens have been borrowing materials
>from the derelict in constructing their nest. After all, is still there.
>
Well, the aliens seem to have the ability to build nests using resinous
material both in Aliens and the cut out scene where Brett and Dallas are
found cocooned and they seemed to build it in a biomechanic way, and the
production crew made their own version of the Giger biomechanic look and
didn't think too deeply about that element all the way through, some
elements were very well created like the route they entered the nest
through in Aliens
James Seay
Larry Campbell wrote:
> In article <19970913182...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> wmvrr...@aol.com (Wmvrrvrrmm) wrote:
>
> > In article <?digman?-13099713...@206.109.29.63>, ?digman?@neosoft.com
> > (Larry Campbell) writes:
> >
> > >Well, judging by the way the Aliens were "redecorating" the power plant
> > >in Aliens, I'd hafta say that they indeed had changed the interior of the
> > >derelict
> > >to suit their needs.
> > >Sort of like wasps, aren't they?
> >
> > What about the exterior of the derelict then, which was designed with
> > biomechanoid features. The aliens didn't make a fantastic job of altering
> > the interior of the powerstation to make it look like the interior of the
> > derelict.
>
> Read my post again.
> The I-N-T-E-R-I-O-R of the derelict and the fusion reactor were altered
> in much the same way as an eave or hole in your wall might be changed by
> wasps fashioning a nest.
> The exterior of the derelict, like the reactor, was left untouched.
> Watch the movies again.
>
>
Remember that the whole Derelict was biomechanical (the comments from Dallas, etc.
as they walk up to it), inside and out.
> > Also the Space Jockey had biomechanoid features in it's body structure and
> > it's seat structure. Do you feel that the aliens from Aliens designed these
> > too when they took over the ship.
>
> He, and the chair were of a different design than the structures found
> inside the alien
> nesting sites.
> Look closely at the entrance the egg chamber in the ALIEN.
> Does it look to be of the same design as the ship?
> Watch the movies again.
>
Again, the chair, Jockey, egg chamber, ship was of the same design; Giger made them
all. Even regardless to idea of the same artist making all of these structures,
etc. means that they all are interconnected, just by watching the movie it is
apparent that they "are".
Evil Twin
James Seay
Larry Campbell wrote:
> In article <wsmiii-1409...@clv-oh15-22.ix.netcom.com>,
> wsm...@ix.netcom.com (William Miller) wrote:
>
> > I personally felt that the resemblance of the powerplant nest to the
> > derelict interior was a glaring mistake, pure and simple - committed in
> > the name of recycling of some of the signature images of the original.
>
> Why?
> There was terrific continuity between the first and second films.
> I think the hive interior was placed in the second with true cinematic
> license: a foreboding image of the horror that awaited the Marines.
>
> -L
>
I agree; my only problem was that Ripley did not recognise it as "Alien". Of course
she didn't see the inside of the Derelict, but she saw the Alien from about 6 inches
away, as well as find it's nest (which was cut). Even despite this, just from
description, it would have been pretty obvious to the Marines what to expect.
Buuuuut it is a movie and was worked out in typical movie style as far as the usual
horror type stuff; I just think it could have been better played off, but oh well.
Evil Twin
Wmvrrvrrmm
In article <?digman?-14099700...@digital-02-169.hou.neoworld.net>,
?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) writes:
>
>Read my post again.
>The I-N-T-E-R-I-O-R of the derelict and the fusion reactor were altered
>in much the same way as an eave or hole in your wall might be changed by
>wasps fashioning a nest.
>The exterior of the derelict, like the reactor, was left untouched.
>Watch the movies again.
In view of what you felt that the exterior of the derelict was left
untouched, it was a biomechanoid organic design designed by the same mind
who designed the interior, as Evil Twin has stated.
Everything was designed to be biomechanic, you should study the way that
Giger has his ideas and how he gets ripped off, and you might fin some of
the more obvious statements about the alien will just erupt right in front
of your face.
You ought to hunt down and read all the ideas as well behind the creation
of the derelict and the space jockey and a lot of the ideas surrounding
that right from the origins and you would get a very clear picture of what
is going on and it won't allow you to crash in the wrong directions so
easily. I see that you're trying to make a point from what you see in the
films and you can hardly see what is there with all the darkness and we
don't seem to find out much of what is going on from the first movie and
then we have to search and search through all those horrendously expensive
old magazines that take years to accumulate and even longer to read, and
they should have a book with all the interviews so that no one will have to
make obvious mistakes.
You may as well make such observations purely from your point of view but
some of us who have made sure that there is no stone not overturned know
too much after many hard years of collecting and that is how the whole
thing goes
James Seay
Bulistik wrote:
> >> Well, judging by the way the Aliens were "redecorating" the power plant
> >> in Aliens, I'd hafta say that they indeed had changed the interior of the
> >> derelict
>
> Uh, huh. Sorry. Don't mean to be rude or nothin', but THE "ALIENS"
> HIVE AND THE DERILICT SHIP LOOKED NOTHING LIKE EACH OTHER!!!! Sorry. Take
> a look at the movie or stills from Aliens. The hive is very much like
> dried goo (secreted resin) Very organic and as if someone had pasted organs
> to a wall. Compare this to the derilict ship, which is VERY mechanical.
> Yes, there are a few coincidences, but the ship has basically one pattern
> repeated over and over again (chest element with lines inbetween)
> and the hive looks like someone blew their nose in it. I see nothing
> mechanical about this, except for where the power station is showing
> through. Sorry, just had to say that.
> Brian
Similar to the reply by Larry, you also have to remember that James Cameron
was doing this film his own way. Whether or not he had the copyright to copy
EXACTLY what was seen in ALIEN, as an "arteest" he probably felt he "owed" the
public his own, unique vision (like the bony headed aliens). Even the lair of
the Alien in the first film (as seen on the nice, LD box set put out by Fox) is
relatively different than what we had seen in the Derelict. Just as no two
people are alike (due to unique patterns of growth in the physics of biology),
so it is probably the same with the Jockey's technology and the Alien's ability
to convert it's surroundings. Also remember that both had bone-like structures,
and that Cameron designed the nest in the second film himself, not Giger.
Of course, it could just be me :)
Evil Twin
Wmvrrvrrmm
I'm very interested in the actual way that the design of the derelict came
to be.
I liked the fact that it seemed to have arrived from ideas about the
Castle Harkonnen, which is an organic building designed by Giger for. It
has a bone structure interior and an organic skin on the outside. The bone
interior is different, but they both have one and they have a skin like outside.
I like the notion that only the top of it can be seen above the surface,
and there's more below, and then it seems that the silo beneath the ship
may reach far down below the ground. And both seem to be very hollow.
In Scott's original story boards which I've seen in Fantastic Films, he
incorperated ideas from the Harkonnen pictures (in Giger's Necronomicon
which he used like a bible) onto the outside of his ideas of the egg silos,
and so he had a spiked stair way as in Dune 1 , work 289, and he liked the
idea of this organic egg shape of the Harkonnen castle, and this
metamorphosed into the silo, and it seems almost as if the silo
metamorphosed into the derelict ship, although if there enough money and
time they would have both been filmed and highlighted the fact that the
builders of the derelict built silos as well, and there seemed to be
something odd going on , and the Jockeys were involved in the business of
storing these spores in silos for some reason.
Lookintg at the Space Jockey's origin in Necronomicon V, work 304 in
Gigers' Necronomicon, the way the creature is formed here seems to be
neither one thing nor another, it has a limb that has a serpent head on the
end, erupting from it's chest, and it seems to have it's waist grafted on
to the back on something like te Alien, and then it's body might be
piercing through the alien lookalike's back, and it's lower half coming
through the other side may be encased in a knid of sarcophagus which has a
curled pointed tip which is piercing though the mouth of another humanoid
creatue that's grafted onto a pipe like structure. It's a confusing image
but it does make one wonder what the space jockey was like in it's own life
time. The space jockey in that picture has a tentacle like pipe erutping
from it's chin and one coming out of the back of it's skull, and has a pair
of handle bars attached to its serpent headed limb.
I think in the film Alien we only see the bare bones of something that
could be highly confusing
Larry Campbell
In article <19970916174...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
wmvrr...@aol.com (Wmvrrvrrmm) wrote:
> In article <?digman?-14099700...@digital-02-169.hou.neoworld.net>,
> ?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) writes:
>
> >
> >Read my post again.
> >The I-N-T-E-R-I-O-R of the derelict and the fusion reactor were altered
> >in much the same way as an eave or hole in your wall might be changed by
> >wasps fashioning a nest.
> >The exterior of the derelict, like the reactor, was left untouched.
> >Watch the movies again.
>
> In view of what you felt that the exterior of the derelict was left
> untouched, it was a biomechanoid organic design designed by the same mind
> who designed the interior, as Evil Twin has stated.
Sure, Giger designed the creature, the ship, and some of the sets.
There is differentiation between the designs.
I doubt Giger wanted them to be seamless.
>
> Everything was designed to be biomechanic, you should study the way that
> Giger has his ideas and how he gets ripped off, and you might fin some of
> the more obvious statements about the alien will just erupt right in front
> of your face.
Er, I get your point, although it's a bit overdone.
>
> You ought to hunt down and read all the ideas as well behind the creation
> of the derelict and the space jockey and a lot of the ideas surrounding
> that right from the origins and you would get a very clear picture of what
> is going on and it won't allow you to crash in the wrong directions so
> easily. I see that you're trying to make a point from what you see in the
> films and you can hardly see what is there with all the darkness and we
> don't seem to find out much of what is going on from the first movie and
> then we have to search and search through all those horrendously expensive
> old magazines that take years to accumulate and even longer to read, and
> they should have a book with all the interviews so that no one will have to
> make obvious mistakes.
Yeah, I've got all the "old" books.
Funny, I haven't really come to regard them as such yet, since I was a teen when
ALIEN was released.
>
> You may as well make such observations purely from your point of view but
> some of us who have made sure that there is no stone not overturned know
> too much after many hard years of collecting and that is how the whole
> thing goes
I'm intrigued by the story, not obsessed.
-L
Larry Campbell
> Similar to the reply by Larry, you also have to remember that James Cameron
> was doing this film his own way. Whether or not he had the copyright to copy
> EXACTLY what was seen in ALIEN, as an "arteest" he probably felt he "owed" the
> public his own, unique vision (like the bony headed aliens). Even the lair of
> the Alien in the first film (as seen on the nice, LD box set put out by
Fox) is
> relatively different than what we had seen in the Derelict. Just as no two
> people are alike (due to unique patterns of growth in the physics of biology),
> so it is probably the same with the Jockey's technology and the Alien's
ability
> to convert it's surroundings. Also remember that both had bone-like
structures,
> and that Cameron designed the nest in the second film himself, not Giger.
> Of course, it could just be me :)
>
>
> Evil Twin
I agree.
A question:
Honestly, when you first saw ALIENS, were you in the least bit
disappointed in the set design?
I read the Foster novelization a month before the movie was released, and
the movie did not
in that regard live up to my expectations.
Larry Campbell
In article <wsmiii-1509...@clv-oh28-54.ix.netcom.com>,
wsm...@ix.netcom.com (William Miller) wrote:
> In article <?digman?-15099719...@digital-02-147.hou.neoworld.net>,
> ?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) wrote:
>
> > > I personally felt that the resemblance of the powerplant nest to the
> > > derelict interior was a glaring mistake, pure and simple - committed in
> > > the name of recycling of some of the signature images of the original.
> >
> > Why?
> > There was terrific continuity between the first and second films.
> > I think the hive interior was placed in the second with true cinematic
> > license: a foreboding image of the horror that awaited the Marines.
> >
>
> It works on a dramatic level, but simply makes no sense from the point of
> view of continuity of the fictional universe. The "wet black ribs" look
> belongs to the derilict, pure and simple, and was not, IMHO, a product of
> the Alien. It has no business showing up again in the Alien nest in the
> power plant.
>
> The hypotheses that the derelict spaceship was actually "lined" in some
> way by the Aliens is an interesting alternative... But no cigar, IMHO.
> Another alternative that just occurred to me: the Aliens actually looted
> the derilict for raw materials for their nest. Could be. But its a
> butt-ugly, after the fact construction, too. I just think Cameron goofed,
> or didn't care all that much about fine tuned continuity.
>
> (Its been awhile since I've seen either film; I'll have a lot to chew on
> next time through.)
IMHO.
It's nice when you qualify your statements.
They are, after all, conjecture, as are mine.
You really need to see the films again.
Larry Campbell
In article <19970916063...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
buli...@aol.com (Bulistik) wrote:
> >> Well, judging by the way the Aliens were "redecorating" the power plant
> >> in Aliens, I'd hafta say that they indeed had changed the interior of the
> >> derelict
>
> Uh, huh. Sorry. Don't mean to be rude or nothin', but THE "ALIENS"
> HIVE AND THE DERILICT SHIP LOOKED NOTHING LIKE EACH OTHER!!!! Sorry. Take
> a look at the movie or stills from Aliens. The hive is very much like
> dried goo (secreted resin) Very organic and as if someone had pasted organs
> to a wall. Compare this to the derilict ship, which is VERY mechanical.
> Yes, there are a few coincidences, but the ship has basically one pattern
> repeated over and over again (chest element with lines inbetween)
> and the hive looks like someone blew their nose in it. I see nothing
> mechanical about this, except for where the power station is showing
> through. Sorry, just had to say that.
> Brian
The interior of the nest looks like dried snot, but the outside (where
Burke asks
Ripley what it is) is ribbed like the derelict.
IMIT ULTRA
Much like the crystals on planet Krypton --- Superman rules
Wmvrrvrrmm
In article <?digman?-16099722...@digital-01-103.hou.neoworld.net>,
?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) writes:
>>
>> In view of what you felt that the exterior of the derelict was left
>> untouched, it was a biomechanoid organic design designed by the same mind
>> who designed the interior, as Evil Twin has stated.
>
>Sure, Giger designed the creature, the ship, and some of the sets.
>There is differentiation between the designs.
>I doubt Giger wanted them to be seamless.
>
They seem to add up to a full formed construction. I think that Giger
wanted them to be seemless but there was never the time or money to make
them purely as he wanted. He wanted to make everything biomechanic and
there were many ideas that didn't make themselves manifested of course.
The alien is as biomechanic as the Space jockey of course, it would have
helped if they were not , but it seems that they are and so this has
launched a number of people's minds into an area of psychobabble that's
almost two decades old.
>
>
>>
>> Everything was designed to be biomechanic, you should study the way that
>> Giger has his ideas and how he gets ripped off, and you might find some of
>> the more obvious statements about the alien will just erupt right in front
>> of your face.
>
>Er, I get your point, although it's a bit overdone.
What was overdone in your opinion?
It's a nice thing to be able to see how Giger's forms his ideas and see
how some of the ideas in his biomechanics forms and find the language that
runs through everything. We would be able to see what his biomechanic ideas
are all about, and perhaps the jockey's seat and the telescope and the
platform are all a bit harder looking in appearance.
It's nice to see it as a ship with three entrances and they seem to lead
upwards to the gangway running arounf the cockpit, and the walls are ribbed
in a biomechanic way but look very hard as the platform and then we see
into the main cockpit area which seems to be covered in biomechanic bony
ribbing, and this is all very beautiful. The original idea would have been
more complex but they simplified it and they decided to use the same
interior as in the silo for the cockpit which Giger broke it down to an
amiable ribbing patterns.
The cockpit chamber even has a transparent dome incorperated into the
biomechanic designs, right at the top, and this only exists in the original
painting.
The outerskin of the derelict is very similar to the outer skin of the
Castle Harkonnen
in the Dune film project, and this castle was designed as a kind of living
entity with a an almost hollow interior
>
>
>
>>
>> You ought to hunt down and read all the ideas as well behind the creation
>> of the derelict and the space jockey and a lot of the ideas surrounding
>> that right from the origins and you would get a very clear picture of what
>> is going on and it won't allow you to crash in the wrong directions so
>> easily.
>
>Yeah, I've got all the "old" books.
>Funny, I haven't really come to regard them as such yet, since I was a teen
>when ALIEN was released.
>
Have you been a big magazine collector regarding alien though?
>
>>
>> You may as well make such observations purely from your point of view but
>> some of us who have made sure that there is no stone not overturned know
>> too much after many hard years of collecting and that is how the whole
>> thing goes
>
>I'm intrigued by the story, not obsessed.
No one needs to be obsessed, we may as well pay attention to answering the
questions in our head by buying all the material that holds answers and
this is what we get, something that seems like a bible to some people. And
there's a lot of it and lot's of intricate details. so many of them that
there might be seen to be too many, but there is a beautiful something or
other evolving within the multitude of details.
Although I'll say that I'm obsessed with getting details into perspective
so that I can lay them down and be content to have them lie dormant in
reservoirs of knowledge to access in my spare time.
>
>-L
>
>--
TarlaStar
wmvrr...@aol.com (Wmvrrvrrmm) wrote:
>In article <?digman?-14099700...@digital-02-169.hou.neoworld.net>,
>?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) writes:
>>
>>Read my post again.
>>The I-N-T-E-R-I-O-R of the derelict and the fusion reactor were altered
>>in much the same way as an eave or hole in your wall might be changed by
>>wasps fashioning a nest.
>>The exterior of the derelict, like the reactor, was left untouched.
>>Watch the movies again.
>In view of what you felt that the exterior of the derelict was left
>untouched, it was a biomechanoid organic design designed by the same mind
>who designed the interior, as Evil Twin has stated.
>Everything was designed to be biomechanic, you should study the way that
>Giger has his ideas and how he gets ripped off, and you might fin some of
>the more obvious statements about the alien will just erupt right in front
>of your face.
>You ought to hunt down and read all the ideas as well behind the creation
>of the derelict and the space jockey and a lot of the ideas surrounding
>that right from the origins and you would get a very clear picture of what
>is going on and it won't allow you to crash in the wrong directions so
>easily.
I think that's ridiculous. One shouldn't have to study beforehand in
order to understand a film. Additionally, what doesn't go on
screen...doesn't count. If the film doesn't explain itself well enough
without the viewer having to do research then it's just not a good
film. It doesn't matter what goes on in some book by Geiger, what
matters is what we see on screen and what we can determine from that.
> I see that you're trying to make a point from what you see in the
>films and you can hardly see what is there with all the darkness and we
>don't seem to find out much of what is going on from the first movie and
>then we have to search and search through all those horrendously expensive
>old magazines that take years to accumulate and even longer to read, and
>they should have a book with all the interviews so that no one will have to
>make obvious mistakes.
>You may as well make such observations purely from your point of view but
>some of us who have made sure that there is no stone not overturned know
>too much after many hard years of collecting and that is how the whole
>thing goes
Horse manure.
Tarla
***Tarla Star***
"If the Pope pushed over Howdy Doody in the woods and there was
no one around but one hand clapping, would Rose Kennedy get
bear shit on her black dress? I think I've made my point."
--Thaddeus N. Gunn
Wmvrrvrrmm
In article <5vo8ub$a...@snews1.zippo.com>, !!!bmy...@ionet.net (TarlaStar)
writes:
>
>I think that's ridiculous. One shouldn't have to study beforehand in
>order to understand a film. Additionally, what doesn't go on
>screen...doesn't count. If the film doesn't explain itself well enough
>without the viewer having to do research then it's just not a good
>film. It doesn't matter what goes on in some book by Geiger, what
>matters is what we see on screen and what we can determine from that.
>
And it doesn't work.
I think then it's a question of finding out what the reasoning in the
design is, and looking at all the ideas and so on as they came through the
director and the scene designers and this information is accessible if you
hunt for it and then when you hunt for it , you find all these answers and
the whole pattern starts to build up.
I don't know what you want from the film, but I've got a creative world to
think about, simply from what they tried to achieve.
In a sequal, they would have tried to make the thing much better if Giger
and Scott had been employed.
What the situation was that I was dealing with with this person's opinion
about the derelict was an idea that this person had and it had flaws to it
that could be seen, and they had no obvious basis if one becomes deeply
involved in what was going on and what has been misinterpreted.
I think that the film was very flawed, that is obvious, and there is a
great poetic vision that could be explored by putting all the pieces
together and if you don't then you may as well chew or suck on the corner
of a coffee table or something. There would be no reason having any
opinions about what was going on in the background of the film in terms if
the secret life of the alien, and there was nothing to view in relation
between Alien and Aliens and Alien3 and indeed Alien 4. All this kind of
information means absolutely nothing, thy are all flawed films that should
have been rewritten and I may as well go on an on about what there was
going on in the original Alien film until I go blue and black in my
fingertips and it still wont matter. What is there to really give a damn
about in Alien? I don;t know anymore, I may as well not be concerned in the
least.
This person ?digman? had a good way of putting theories together and there
were all these errors but there were good questions put forth, asking what
was going on, and I wish there were a derelict that was actually taken over
by aliens and biomechanised, and that would have been nice to see such a
structure, but the derelict was a biomechanised structure from the very
beginning of its days and that's the way it was supposed to be, everything
in it was a varient of Giger's special biomechanoid design style. If
?Digman? had access to every piece of information available, we would have
different statements coming from Digman's e-mails. It might be also e-mails
that you would not be able to argue with if he had everything, or you might
as well call everything that Digman says, horse manure.
Once we sort out the answers about this kind of questioning, we would be
able to ground the debate and then find ways to get to a further level or
awareness about the ideas in alien
>
>>You may as well make such observations purely from your point of view but
>>some of us who have made sure that there is no stone not overturned know
>>too much after many hard years of collecting and that is how the whole
>>thing goes
>
>Horse manure.
It's so easy to just say horse manure , so I'll say it too that your
opinion is horse manure, and I really have a heavy pile of articles on
Alien, and many of them deal with the design point of view which I am
interested in , from the director and the various people called to design
various things within the film, and I don't need to be aware of your kind
of statements.
Larry Campbell
In article <5vr4iu$m...@snews3.zippo.com>, !!!bmy...@ionet.net (TarlaStar) wrote:
> That's a thought. You might not bother your head about ANY of
> this...it's just a movie. It doesn't mean a damned thing.
>
> >This person ?digman? had a good way of putting theories together and there
> >were all these errors but there were good questions put forth, asking what
> >was going on, and I wish there were a derelict that was actually taken over
> >by aliens and biomechanised, and that would have been nice to see such a
> >structure, but the derelict was a biomechanised structure from the very
> >beginning of its days and that's the way it was supposed to be, everything
> >in it was a varient of Giger's special biomechanoid design style. If
> >?Digman? had access to every piece of information available, we would have
> >different statements coming from Digman's e-mails. It might be also e-mails
> >that you would not be able to argue with if he had everything, or you might
> >as well call everything that Digman says, horse manure.
>
> Or I might think that Digman was as obsessed as you are.
Call me Larry, please.
Digman is the abbreviated form of my graphics shop's name that I thought up
on the fly when the Neosoft salesperson asked my preference for a user I.D.
(or handle).
It's sort of stuck with me since then so I never bothered to change it,
though you'd be
surprised at the flames I get on c.s.m.a. for it.
Posting anonymously,indeed. hrrrmmpf!
No, I'm not obsessed with the Alien story, though I'm looking forward to
A4 in a couple of months.
I must say that this newsgroup has some of the most engaging discussion I've
encountered since first stepping foot into UseNet.
My pastime has been destroying trolls in advocacy groups until now.
I think I've just found a more productive way to spend my time.
Larry Campbell
In article <wsmiii-1709...@clv-oh15-18.ix.netcom.com>,
wsm...@ix.netcom.com (William Miller) wrote:
> In article <19970918004...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> imit...@aol.com (IMIT ULTRA) wrote:
>
> > Cameron sucks now days --His career is over ---His time has passed --
>
> What happened to "The Titanic"? Was it released? Gonna be?
Should be released for Christmas.
Saw the trailer...effects are impressive, as always for a Cameron film, but
really, the Titanic?
I mean, who cares?
It's been done, and the story as conveyed by the trailer wasn't all that
appealing to me.
William Miller
In article <?digman?-18099718...@digital-00-36.hou.neoworld.net>,
?digman?@neosoft.com (Larry Campbell) wrote:
> Should be released for Christmas.
> Saw the trailer...effects are impressive, as always for a Cameron film, but
> really, the Titanic?
> I mean, who cares?
> It's been done, and the story as conveyed by the trailer wasn't all that
> appealing to me.
>
Well, it remains to be seen what he has done with it. He is a master of
the action genre, y'konw, and Apollo 13 showed how suspenseful a movie can
be, even if one is fully aware of the outcome.
(I haven't seen the trailer yet).
(Should that be a "leader", not a "trailer", anyway? Where'd that name
come from?)
Wmvrrvrrmm
It doesn't matter what goes on in some book by Giger, what
>matters is what we see on screen and what we can determine from that.
>>>
>>And it doesn't work.
>
>you've just seen? Of course it works. I understand the films perfectly
>well and I've never bothered to do any research whatsoever.
>
You can determine something that isn't about the details in the film, you
can explore it in another way that people do analyse films perhaps for
symbolism and that is there on the screen. Go ahead be anyone's guest on
that matter. Don't try to look at the intricate details because you don't
know what they're about
>>I think then it's a question of finding out what the reasoning in the
>>design is, and looking at all the ideas and so on as they came through the
>>director and the scene designers and this information is accessible if you
>>hunt for it and then when you hunt for it , you find all these answers and
>>the whole pattern starts to build up.
>
>It's absolutely unneccessary for a person to do that...a fanatic,
>sure, but just to enjoy the films...no.
>
Enjoy the film as it seems but there is something more as it goes beyond
the screen.
From the film, no one even knew what the main alien looked like even when
the suit was shown. You may as well ignore a lot about what the alien
looked like and build up something from momentary glimpses which for many
people have added up to nthing describable in their minds
>>I don't know what you want from the film, but I've got a creative world to
>>think about, simply from what they tried to achieve.
>
>Oh yeah...I can see that you're real busy thinking about that creative
>world. I, on the other hand, have real life to contend with much of
>the time. Besides, why would I bother with Geiger's world when I can
>create my own with NO logical flaws?
>
Well, I am. and I don't see too many ideas coming out of you with much
impact, and I have read nearly none of your previous e-mails.
>>In a sequal, they would have tried to make the thing much better if Giger
>>and Scott had been employed.
>
>Maybe yes, maybe no.
Well Giger said that he would have tried to make it much better in an
interview if he were involved.
>
>>What the situation was that I was dealing with with this person's opinion
>>about the derelict was an idea that this person had and it had flaws to it
>>that could be seen, and they had no obvious basis if one becomes deeply
>>involved in what was going on and what has been misinterpreted.
>
>Say it again in English, please.
>
I'm trying to deal with this idea about ?digman?'s opinion about the
derelict, and the opinion had flaws to it that could be seen
If one looks deeply into what has been going on, and what has been
misinterpreted by ?digman? we can see that ?digman?'s ideas weren't that
brilliant on the matter.
>>I think that the film was very flawed, that is obvious, and there is a
>>great poetic vision that could be explored by putting all the pieces
>>together and if you don't then you may as well chew or suck on the corner
>>of a coffee table or something.
>
>So if we don't sit around thinking about the great vision that Gieger
>and Scott had...we're wasting our time? One might suggest that just
>the opposite is true.
>
Your wasting you time trying to find out these endless questions that just
seem to be exploring the whole realm of the alien and it's biology and the
history of the things like the space jockey and why the derelict looks
biomechanised. Yes.
If you think about what Scott has said and you get it wrong and someone
else can tell you then that's the truth.
If you want to think about what Scott has said, but you don't want people
to tell you who have all the information at hand, then this is fine in
terms of a creative exercise, and you would have to tell people with the
answers that you don't want them, and they may as well say "OK, this is
fine for you to play guessing games, and we'll delete everything you say,
unless we want to see how hot or cold you are getting in your own ignorance
of the truth of the ideas, but what you managed to see in the film where
the ideas weren't the main part of the film plot"
If you want it to be just a film about people dying because of a monster
loose on board, that's great, don't pay any attention to the fiddly little
details, because in the film there were questions and Scott wanted to
answer them in a sequel and as he couldn't, we can plow through all the
interviews in the magazines and books to look for the world of ideas that
have been thought up and developed in the past.
It's like seeing the Egyptian Pyramids, and you can say wow about seeing
the Egyptian pyramids, from afar and close. And you can wonder how it was
built and and what the hieroglyphs inside mean and there are many theories.
It seems that the ancient Egyptian language can be translated very well now
but there are many things that still remain incoherent. And no one has the
foggiest clue as to how the pyramids were built because it seems
unreasonable and impossible.
None of this seems to be important to actually being fascinated by pyramids.
But if you want to go deep inside and assume that there is an answer,
Well, digging up all the old interviews with production team members,a nd
old diagrams to find out about Alien film's past, is as good as digging up
an old tome going back dozens of thousands of years showing how to decipher
the hieroglyphs in detail, and how to look at the reasons and methods used
for creating such a pyramid
>>There would be no reason having any
>>opinions about what was going on in the background of the film in terms if
>>the secret life of the alien, and there was nothing to view in relation
>>between Alien and Aliens and Alien3 and indeed Alien 4. All this kind of
>>information means absolutely nothing, thy are all flawed films that should
>>have been rewritten and I may as well go on an on about what there was
>>going on in the original Alien film until I go blue and black in my
>>fingertips and it still wont matter. What is there to really give a damn
>>about in Alien? I don;t know anymore, I may as well not be concerned in the
>>least.
>
>That's a thought. You might not bother your head about ANY of
>this...it's just a movie. It doesn't mean a damned thing.
The world where ideas are generated and explored means a great deal for
me. Like a kind of mythology. or a set of mental concepts and possibilities
to live with. I'm thinking about Scott's statement that Alien 2 would have
been for the sci-fi buff while Alien one was an enjoyable thriller.
This film Alien, with all its details does the same thing for me as Blade
Runner and David Lynch films, and, novels by Kafka and the book Ovid's
Metamorphosis.
One may as well go on and look at detail after detail and see if there is
a familiarity about their arrangements and use this whole thing as a
pattern of thought to look at in other people's ideas. And there is a
strange gap in between people's theories and the final answer from the
person who created the mystery, which is always of interest.
>> If ?Digman? had access to every piece of information available, we
would have
>>different statements coming from Digman's e-mails. It might be also e-mails
>>that you would not be able to argue with if he had everything, or you might
>>as well call everything that Digman says, horse manure.
>
>Or I might think that Digman was as obsessed as you are.
>
There's no need for ?Digman? to be obsessed at all.
>I don't care that much about the ideas in Alien, frankly. It was just
>a good movie, okay? It's not the basis of my life's philosphy fer
>chrissakes.
There is a philosophy that one may as well explore in dealing with ideas
and concepts that one might find to be of interest, and look at the way
that people gathered together to put them together. Then there are the
people who are involved in the design works who are famous names in their
fields, like Giger, Cobb, Moebius and also Voss, and these people are like
living legends.
As there isn't much art language to share amongst people like there was
during the tme when people sculpted painted warriors, maidens,monsters,
cherubim, seraphim, goddesses, gods, nyads,dryads and harmadryads and other
things that appear in commonly accepted mythologies, Alien has given a new
wave to ideas about mythology and people have been ripping it off ever
since to express the darkest side of themselves, because of the Giger
monsters and all the ideas that go on within the designs of them
They seem to be involved in a modern expression of mythical feelings, and
so for some of us it is important to see what the original ideas were
about, just as it is to find out the origins of Greek Classical Myths.
And so, with the Alien film, there were all these secret elaborate ideas
that were scattered around the film in large quantities, and they are not
important to how the film ran as a story, the viewed story was the most
important thing, and it made sense and yet there were all these odd things
that didn't make sense on closer inspection, and there is a way to find out
if you want.
>>>Horse manure.
>
>>It's so easy to just say horse manure , so I'll say it too that your
>>opinion is horse manure, and I really have a heavy pile of articles on
>>Alien, and many of them deal with the design point of view which I am
>>interested in , from the director and the various people called to design
>>various things within the film, and I don't need to be aware of your kind
>>of statements.
>
>Well you ARE aware of my kind of statements or you wouldn't have
>responded to them (in your fashion).
I have responded to your statments in the best way I could, because you
decided to respond to one of my statements and that's about it, I haven't
spent much time with this news group to look at your statements previously.
As long as you wish to communicate with me on the issue of then film , I
may as well communicate with you, but do I really need to be, that's a
different question.
> What I said stands. A person
>should not have to do research outside of the theatre to be able to
>enjoy and understand a film. Your position is that one should spend
>hundreds of hours studying the characters, the design, the film
>production background in order to have a fuller understanding of the
>movie. I say that's horseshit. If the average filmgoer can't
>understand what they're looking at, then it's not done well, period.
>
>Tarla
>***Tarla Star***
I think that we may as well have access to all these bits of information.
I think that the mind was able to pick it up intuitively, and then it's a
question of finding all these little broken bits of facts to put together
and it was really fun and I like to do it with a lot of other things and
Alien has been a source of entertainment.
It seems sad that the average film goer has nothing to find out so easily
just by looking at the films, but then people are asking questions that
take the film beyond the screen, and then it has to go to the realm of what
was in print. The need would be to be true to the source of the idea, and
this feeling was evident in the original film production, and it's hard to
find new ideas.
If you want it to be Jaws in Space that's fine with me, that's all it was,
and then it may as well be that we can extend it and take it into the world
where something makes sense beyond the screen. It seems that some people
find the whole fascination bleeding over to the world of ideas secretly
there, and there are some people like me who are bored and have the
internet and would like to tell people about what one has seen in the
interviews and then ideally it should open up more and more questions and
it could go on forever, and one can look at the questons that have been
answered and where they go off into the unanswerable and Scott has done
this himself and to get to his state and other people's state of reasoning
in the film about what was going on means that one has hit the mark and can
leave it all behind to some extent, but the ideas that came through Giger
seem to live on and evolve and some people are being true to the original
idea and some are not and some are being true to other people's ideas.
I don't know what the truth here is then, about the true symmetrical
pattern of the Alien idea , but one can appreciate the ambience of it and
the boundaries within which there can be changes made over time, and one
appreciates that in each movie, each director has made it their own film,
and if they could be there own films without needing to connect to the
other films in the series, we might find that each one is an honest film as
each person's attempt at making a Dracula film might be different but
originating from the same theme. For the directors to make their director's
mark, this has actually happened, and this has messed the continuity of the
series up.
I was interested in Scott's decision making, and Cameron's and even
Fincher's and I hope that Jeunet who is one Maestro to honour can be as
interesting in his personal decision making to add his own vision. But
there was something so beautiful in the original movie which I admit feels
very personal, and I have incorperated what I feel about it into some
aspect of my life as a very intense piece of art, like someone would have a
picture on their wall for the rest of their life and pause to wonder, and I
don't know what makes me wonder really, that's perhaps just a fascination
with Giger's images brought to life and so on......
William Miller
> What I said stands. A person
> should not have to do research outside of the theatre to be able to
> enjoy and understand a film. Your position is that one should spend
> hundreds of hours studying the characters, the design, the film
> production background in order to have a fuller understanding of the
> movie. I say that's horseshit. If the average filmgoer can't
> understand what they're looking at, then it's not done well, period.
>
There is middle ground here, y'know.
A movie that stands on its own, that can be enjoyed and understood on its
own terms, may also be worth investigating behind the screen. In fact,
the greater the artistry of the film, the more worthwhile the
investigation may be - it gets you to the artist, to the ideas that
propelled the film, and to related ideas. Alien is not 'great art', but
it does reflect considerable artistry - particularly for a commercial
scifi-horror film.
I, for one, though I haven't accumulated a stack of behind the scenes
information (who has time for that?), would be interested to peruse such a
stack.
Tracy Maurer
the egg chamber was not actually part of the derelict - it was far below
it, through a hole made by their trademark acid burn, in tunnels that
extended for what looked like miles. they certainly looked organic. and
there was that film of mist, as if the space jockeys were keeping the
eggs in some kind of stasis...hm.
was the site of the derelict an 'on purpose' thing? i mean, the space
jockey was the only one of its kind we saw... and he seemed to have been
grown from the chair - a sitting duck for implantation (pardon the pun).
maybe he was nothing more than a pilot/sacrifial lamb, set down with a
queen in his chest, which burst and then laid all those eggs in the
tunnels below (before dying or going dormant somewhere or whatever they
do.
maybe the dark horse comics idea of the xenomorphs as bred hunting
animals for the predator species makes sense, looked at from that point
of view. and the warning was their way of saying 'private hunting
preserve: keep out' (mother just didn't translate it that well).
what does everyone think? will it fly?
--dda
'why not just surrender now and save us both time?'
William Miller
In article <5vts1h$8...@snews1.zippo.com>, !!!bmy...@ionet.net (TarlaStar) wrote:
> Films which are based on previous works may lead one to read the work
> that the film was based upon, but if the film itself cannot stand
> without the viewer doing research, it's just not a good film.
> Fortunately, Alien stands on its own without any need for outside
> sources.
I find it hard to imagine one *not* having a new appreciation
for/understanding of Alien following an exposure to Giger's other work,
his biomechanical ideas, etc. In a sense, Alien is 'based on' Giger - at
least in terms of its wholly original visual style.
> I recently saw the film "Contact" and since that film actually DOES
> contain quite a bit of philosophy, I went out and bought the book that
> it was based upon. Not because I wanted to understand the film better
> (it was clear enough) but because I wanted to read the source of the
> philosophy. In this particular case, the author, Carl Sagan, actually
> HAD been a theorist.
I loved Contact, particularly the mind-fuck opening sequence, which took
my breath away.
Interesting to note that Contact actually began as movie script/project,
though after Sagan was unsuccessful in getting it filmed, he turned it
into a novel.
(See? An interesting background bonbon.)
WillBill
TarlaStar
wmvrr...@aol.com (Wmvrrvrrmm) wrote:
> It doesn't matter what goes on in some book by Giger, what
>>matters is what we see on screen and what we can determine from that.
>>>>
>>>And it doesn't work.
>>
>>What doesn't work? Looking at a movie and figuring it out from what
>>you've just seen? Of course it works. I understand the films perfectly
>>well and I've never bothered to do any research whatsoever.
>>
>You can determine something that isn't about the details in the film, you
>can explore it in another way that people do analyse films perhaps for
>symbolism and that is there on the screen. Go ahead be anyone's guest on
>that matter. Don't try to look at the intricate details because you don't
>know what they're about
Like the chains hanging from the ceilings? What intricate details are
relevant to the film that are so fucking esoteric that I would be
unable to understand them, but that YOU would?
>>>I think then it's a question of finding out what the reasoning in the
>>>design is, and looking at all the ideas and so on as they came through the
>>>director and the scene designers and this information is accessible if you
>>>hunt for it and then when you hunt for it , you find all these answers and
>>>the whole pattern starts to build up.
>>
>>It's absolutely unneccessary for a person to do that...a fanatic,
>>sure, but just to enjoy the films...no.
>>
>Enjoy the film as it seems but there is something more as it goes beyond
>the screen.
Yeah...fanaticism and fantasy.
>From the film, no one even knew what the main alien looked like even when
>the suit was shown. You may as well ignore a lot about what the alien
>looked like and build up something from momentary glimpses which for many
>people have added up to nthing describable in their minds
>>>I don't know what you want from the film, but I've got a creative world to
>>>think about, simply from what they tried to achieve.
>>
>>Oh yeah...I can see that you're real busy thinking about that creative
>>world. I, on the other hand, have real life to contend with much of
>>the time. Besides, why would I bother with Geiger's world when I can
>>create my own with NO logical flaws?
>>
>Well, I am. and I don't see too many ideas coming out of you with much
>impact, and I have read nearly none of your previous e-mails.
I don't write e-mail to people I haven't established a relationship
with. I post. And you won't see many of MY creative ideas unless
you're willing to pay for them.
>>>In a sequal, they would have tried to make the thing much better if Giger
>>>and Scott had been employed.
>>
>>Maybe yes, maybe no.
>Well Giger said that he would have tried to make it much better in an
>interview if he were involved.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
<snip irrelevance>
>>>I think that the film was very flawed, that is obvious, and there is a
>>>great poetic vision that could be explored by putting all the pieces
>>>together and if you don't then you may as well chew or suck on the corner
>>>of a coffee table or something.
>>
>>So if we don't sit around thinking about the great vision that Gieger
>>and Scott had...we're wasting our time? One might suggest that just
>>the opposite is true.
>>
>Your wasting you time trying to find out these endless questions that just
>seem to be exploring the whole realm of the alien and it's biology and the
>history of the things like the space jockey and why the derelict looks
>biomechanised. Yes.
You haven't been reading very closely. *I* haven't examined a thing
about the Alien. It can't be done. It hasn't been shown on film. What
I HAVE done is discuss the fact that human biology and expectations
are not necessarily what xenobiology and alien expectations would be.
It's taken very little of my time and absolutely no research was
necessary since much of this stuff was crammed nicely into my head in
college. It hasn't cost me a dime (beyond what I already pay for
internet service).
>If you think about what Scott has said and you get it wrong and someone
>else can tell you then that's the truth.
It doesn't matter what Scott said if it doesn't show up on the screen.
I adore Ridley Scott, but I can see what's in front of me and I will
not be told that what I'm seeing is not what's really going on. What
if Ridley Scott said in an interview that Ripley's secretly an alien
and that's why she survived the first film? Hmmm? Would that suddenly
change what you saw on screen? No, of course not. If there was no
evidence in the film to show that Ripley was alien...then she wasn't.
It may have been Scott's intention to show any number of things, but
if he didn't get it up on screen...it doesn't count for diddly.
>If you want to think about what Scott has said, but you don't want people
>to tell you who have all the information at hand, then this is fine in
>terms of a creative exercise, and you would have to tell people with the
>answers that you don't want them, and they may as well say "OK, this is
>fine for you to play guessing games, and we'll delete everything you say,
>unless we want to see how hot or cold you are getting in your own ignorance
>of the truth of the ideas, but what you managed to see in the film where
>the ideas weren't the main part of the film plot"
Sorry, but the opinions of others will never be as important to me as
my own.
>If you want it to be just a film about people dying because of a monster
>loose on board, that's great, don't pay any attention to the fiddly little
>details, because in the film there were questions and Scott wanted to
>answer them in a sequel and as he couldn't, we can plow through all the
>interviews in the magazines and books to look for the world of ideas that
>have been thought up and developed in the past.
Let's not since they're irrelevant.
>It's like seeing the Egyptian Pyramids, and you can say wow about seeing
>the Egyptian pyramids, from afar and close. And you can wonder how it was
>built and and what the hieroglyphs inside mean and there are many theories.
>It seems that the ancient Egyptian language can be translated very well now
>but there are many things that still remain incoherent. And no one has the
>foggiest clue as to how the pyramids were built because it seems
>unreasonable and impossible.
Try taking an anthropology course. It's neither unreasonable nor
impossible and the feat has been repeated.
<snip>
>>That's a thought. You might not bother your head about ANY of
>>this...it's just a movie. It doesn't mean a damned thing.
>The world where ideas are generated and explored means a great deal for
>me. Like a kind of mythology. or a set of mental concepts and possibilities
>to live with. I'm thinking about Scott's statement that Alien 2 would have
>been for the sci-fi buff while Alien one was an enjoyable thriller.
Where is this world where ideas are generated and explored? I call
mine, Earth.
>This film Alien, with all its details does the same thing for me as Blade
>Runner and David Lynch films, and, novels by Kafka and the book Ovid's
>Metamorphosis.
Which would be...what? Or am I just supposed to guess at your
emotional reactions? Ovid's "Metamorphosis?"
>One may as well go on and look at detail after detail and see if there is
>a familiarity about their arrangements and use this whole thing as a
>pattern of thought to look at in other people's ideas. And there is a
>strange gap in between people's theories and the final answer from the
>person who created the mystery, which is always of interest.
To you, maybe. As an artist, I see people putting their own
interpretation on stuff all the time. Are they wrong? Not at all.
Communication is tricky stuff at times and artistic symbolism doesn't
mean the same thing to everyone. However, if the artistic intent and
the public perception are so different that the point of the piece is
missed, then the artist has failed. Ridley Scott is a great director,
but if you need to do research in order to understand his films, he
would be a failure. Fortunately, one doesn't have to do that research.
His films are perfectly undertstandable simply by viewing them.
>>I don't care that much about the ideas in Alien, frankly. It was just
>>a good movie, okay? It's not the basis of my life's philosphy fer
>>chrissakes.
>There is a philosophy that one may as well explore in dealing with ideas
>and concepts that one might find to be of interest, and look at the way
>that people gathered together to put them together. Then there are the
>people who are involved in the design works who are famous names in their
>fields, like Giger, Cobb, Moebius and also Voss, and these people are like
>living legends.
Really? I've NEVER heard of Geiger outside of the Alien film. Who's
Cobb and Voss? Moebius..is that like the Moebius Strip? They may be
living legends to YOU but don't presume the rest of the world has even
heard of them. Since when did designers become philosphers? What great
philosophy has Geiger come up with lately?
>As there isn't much art language to share amongst people like there was
>during the tme when people sculpted painted warriors, maidens,monsters,
>cherubim, seraphim, goddesses, gods, nyads,dryads and harmadryads and other
>things that appear in commonly accepted mythologies, Alien has given a new
>wave to ideas about mythology and people have been ripping it off ever
>since to express the darkest side of themselves, because of the Giger
>monsters and all the ideas that go on within the designs of them
Bullshit. Obviously you aren't an artist. Did you think those symbols
just suddenly disappeared from the face of the planet? That we no
longer understand Mythology? I work on a daily basis with these
symbols and more. Your presumptions are incorrect.
>They seem to be involved in a modern expression of mythical feelings, and
>so for some of us it is important to see what the original ideas were
>about, just as it is to find out the origins of Greek Classical Myths.
Do you think human emotions have changed in the last say...10 thousand
years? I don't. I think we're basically the same creatures we were
then and that classical symbolism serves us just as well as some
German illustrator's could...even better.
>And so, with the Alien film, there were all these secret elaborate ideas
>that were scattered around the film in large quantities, and they are not
>important to how the film ran as a story, the viewed story was the most
>important thing, and it made sense and yet there were all these odd things
>that didn't make sense on closer inspection, and there is a way to find out
>if you want.
I don't. They weren't relevant to the film, so they mean NOTHING.
Geiger hasn't promoted any philophies that I'm aware of. His symbols
are nothing more than interesting designs unless and until he can make
his symbology universally understood and accepted. Communication is a
two-way street.
>I think that we may as well have access to all these bits of information.
>I think that the mind was able to pick it up intuitively, and then it's a
>question of finding all these little broken bits of facts to put together
>and it was really fun and I like to do it with a lot of other things and
>Alien has been a source of entertainment.
Unless the symbolism is universally understood, then the little bits
of information that you seem to think are out there...are doing
absolutely NO GOOD. You can put all kinds of symbols around but unless
the viewer understands them and their context, they become
meaningless, even unseen. You can't get it "intuitively" unless you
understand that the item HAS meaning beforehand. There is no universal
mind that automatically understands ideosyncratic symbology.
>It seems sad that the average film goer has nothing to find out so easily
>just by looking at the films, but then people are asking questions that
>take the film beyond the screen, and then it has to go to the realm of what
>was in print. The need would be to be true to the source of the idea, and
>this feeling was evident in the original film production, and it's hard to
>find new ideas.
It seems even sadder to me that you feel you have to find the answers
to life in film. Two hours doesn't leave much time for philosophizing
but I guess that's what we like, instant gratification. The average
filmgoer has nothing to find out from films because THEY ARE
ENTERTAINMENT. If you want philosophy, read a book, talk to another
human being, but don't go to a movie.
TarlaStar
wsm...@ix.netcom.com (William Miller) wrote:
I don't believe I would. What I got from the film was very satisfying
for me. I don't require more. In fact, reading outside sources might
influence my emotional reaction to the film and I don't want that. I'm
very satisfied with my understanding of the film. Insights garnered
from other viewers which I might have missed (but which are contained
within the film) are also of interest to me, but I don't care what
Veronica Cartwright thought or what Sigourney Weaver thought or what
Ridley Scott thought. They HAD their chance on screen.
I recently saw the film "Contact" and since that film actually DOES
contain quite a bit of philosophy, I went out and bought the book that
it was based upon. Not because I wanted to understand the film better
(it was clear enough) but because I wanted to read the source of the
philosophy. In this particular case, the author, Carl Sagan, actually
HAD been a theorist.
Films which are based on previous works may lead one to read the work
that the film was based upon, but if the film itself cannot stand
without the viewer doing research, it's just not a good film.
Fortunately, Alien stands on its own without any need for outside
sources.
TarlaStar
wsm...@ix.netcom.com (William Miller) wrote:
>In article <5vts1h$8...@snews1.zippo.com>, !!!bmy...@ionet.net (TarlaStar) wrote:
>> Films which are based on previous works may lead one to read the work
>> that the film was based upon, but if the film itself cannot stand
>> without the viewer doing research, it's just not a good film.
>> Fortunately, Alien stands on its own without any need for outside
>> sources.
>I find it hard to imagine one *not* having a new appreciation
>for/understanding of Alien following an exposure to Giger's other work,
>his biomechanical ideas, etc. In a sense, Alien is 'based on' Giger - at
>least in terms of its wholly original visual style.
I've seen other Ridley Scott films. He's just as responsible for the
look of the film as Giger.
>I loved Contact, particularly the mind-fuck opening sequence, which took
>my breath away.
>Interesting to note that Contact actually began as movie script/project,
>though after Sagan was unsuccessful in getting it filmed, he turned it
>into a novel.
>(See? An interesting background bonbon.)
But nothing which added to my understanding of either the film or the
book. Interesting? yeah, sorta.
William Miller
>
> I've seen other Ridley Scott films. He's just as responsible for the
> look of the film as Giger.
Visual atmospherics is certainly one of Scott trademarks - apparent even
in his very early films (The Duelists), totally earthbound-in-the-present
stuff (Black Rain), etc.. No doubt why he was attracted to Giger's work.
That said, it is still beyond dispute, IMHO, that an acquaintance with
Giger's art brings additional appreciation/understanding of Alien.
Incidently, examining other works by the same director is another instance
in which interesting background information contributes to an appreciation
of a film, and a better understanding of how it originated (not
necessarily of the contents on the screen).
> >(See? An interesting background bonbon.)
>
> But nothing which added to my understanding of either the film or the
> book. Interesting? yeah, sorta.
And I would find it sorta interesting to peruse that stack of Alien stuff
- even if the film does stand on its own. (I'm haven't been interested
enough to actually *collect* the stuff myself - so I guess that
illustrates my investment in the process).
Wmvrrvrrmm
My response to TarlaStar's response to my response to TarlaStar's response
to my response to.....
>>You can determine something that isn't about the details in the film, you
>>can explore it in another way that people do analyse films perhaps for
>>symbolism and that is there on the screen. Go ahead be anyone's guest on
>>that matter. Don't try to look at the intricate details because you don't
>>know what they're about
>
>Like the chains hanging from the ceilings? What intricate details are relevant
> to the film that are so fucking esoteric that I would be
>unable to understand them, but that YOU would?
Well, as I've said before, the detail aren't relevant to the film, you can
appreciate the film without looking at the details. As far as the film
seems to go as the source of entertainment for the many they are irrelevant
and were just altered considerably for the sequel.
It seems as far as Scott was concerned, you could appreciate half of the
film without being able to understand half of the words, until there were
points where what they said actually mattered to contribute to the plot of
the film.
I'm not going to go into every detail in the film, because it would take
up too much space, but I would use this information when I am trying to
answer people's questions.
>
>>>>I think then it's a question of finding out what the reasoning in the
>>>>design is, and looking at all the ideas and so on as they came through the
>>>>director and the scene designers and this information is accessible if you
>>>>hunt for it and then when you hunt for it , you find all these answers and
>>>>the whole pattern starts to build up.
>>>
>>>It's absolutely unneccessary for a person to do that...a fanatic,
>>>sure, but just to enjoy the films...no.
>>>
>>Enjoy the film as it seems but there is something more as it goes beyond
>>the screen.
>
>Yeah...fanaticism and fantasy.
What's wrong with that any way. I can enjoy speaking to both fantasists
and fanaticists as long as they are interested in the same style of
thinking that went on in the creative concepts in the films.
>>Well, I am. and I don't see too many ideas coming out of you with much
>>impact, and I have read nearly none of your previous e-mails.
>
>I don't write e-mail to people I haven't established a relationship
>with. I post. And you won't see many of MY creative ideas unless
>you're willing to pay for them.
Well, we e-mail into the newsgroup and then we have all the e-mails coming
through the newsgroups, so we are writing e-mails to be read by a
collection of people who subscribe to the alt.cult-movies.alien
>
>>>>In a sequal, they would have tried to make the thing much better if Giger
>>>>and Scott had been employed.
>>>
>>>Maybe yes, maybe no.
>
>>Well Giger said that he would have tried to make it much better in an
>>interview if he were involved.
>
>Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
It can be a boring thing too.
Giger was trying to foresee the possobilities of what he could do if her
were left to go further, and, his theory is that he would only improve on
the work he has done if committed to it, which I have no dount in. He would
have gained from his experiences with Alien and gone faster into the
production of what he wanted to create and he would have been able to
finish more, so the theory goes.
There would have also been a bigger budget too, and more faith in Giger's
ideas perhaps when they were good.
>>Your wasting you time trying to find out these endless questions that just
>>seem to be exploring the whole realm of the alien and it's biology and the
>>history of the things like the space jockey and why the derelict looks
>>biomechanised. Yes.
>
>You haven't been reading very closely. *I* haven't examined a thing
>about the Alien. It can't be done. It hasn't been shown on film. What
>I HAVE done is discuss the fact that human biology and expectations
>are not necessarily what xenobiology and alien expectations would be.
>It's taken very little of my time and absolutely no research was
>necessary since much of this stuff was crammed nicely into my head in
>college. It hasn't cost me a dime (beyond what I already pay for
>internet service).
The 'Your' which should have been ' You're ' at the beginning of that
paragraph there from me was a collective you, as it was as answer in
response to you referring to yourself as being amongst a collective "we",
unless that is you are a member of royalty, and I wouldn't have known that
So that one was a response to the 'we' in this statement from you.
As you stated:
"So if we don't sit around thinking about the great vision
that Gieger and Scott had...we're wasting our time? One
might suggest that just the opposite is true."
As I mentioned in the previous letter, I haven't been reading your e-mails
to the newsgroup because there was nothing much for me to consider having
much immediate impact.
>
>>If you think about what Scott has said and you get it wrong and someone
>>else can tell you then that's the truth.
>
>It doesn't matter what Scott said if it doesn't show up on the screen.
>I adore Ridley Scott, but I can see what's in front of me and I will
>not be told that what I'm seeing is not what's really going on. What
>if Ridley Scott said in an interview that Ripley's secretly an alien
>and that's why she survived the first film? Hmmm? Would that suddenly
>change what you saw on screen?
Really, that wasn't a very good idea from you.
> No, of course not. If there was no
>evidence in the film to show that Ripley was alien...then she wasn't.
>It may have been Scott's intention to show any number of things, but
>if he didn't get it up on screen...it doesn't count for diddly.
Scott's ideas pertaining to the original Alien film, even now, hold firm
to the level of questioning and definition that he used for the original film.
>
>>If you want to think about what Scott has said, but you don't want people
>>to tell you who have all the information at hand, then this is fine in
>>terms of a creative exercise, and you would have to tell people with the
>>answers that you don't want them, and they may as well say "OK, this is
>>fine for you to play guessing games, and we'll delete everything you say,
>>unless we want to see how hot or cold you are getting in your own ignorance
>>of the truth of the ideas, but what you managed to see in the film where
>>the ideas weren't the main part of the film plot"
>
>Sorry, but the opinions of others will never be as important to me as
>my own.
I'm very happy for you.
>
>>If you want it to be just a film about people dying because of a monster
>>loose on board, that's great, don't pay any attention to the fiddly little
>>details, because in the film there were questions and Scott wanted to
>>answer them in a sequel and as he couldn't, we can plow through all the
>>interviews in the magazines and books to look for the world of ideas that
>>have been thought up and developed in the past.
>
>Let's not since they're irrelevant.
>
>>It's like seeing the Egyptian Pyramids, and you can say wow about seeing
>>the Egyptian pyramids, from afar and close. And you can wonder how it was
>>built and and what the hieroglyphs inside mean and there are many theories.
>>It seems that the ancient Egyptian language can be translated very well now
>>but there are many things that still remain incoherent. And no one has the
>>foggiest clue as to how the pyramids were built because it seems
>>unreasonable and impossible.
>
>Try taking an anthropology course. It's neither unreasonable nor
>impossible and the feat has been repeated.
>
If you visited the tombs in the great Pyramid of Giza amd talked with the
experts who had all these amazing hypothesise, they would only be able to
go so far, and then look at the skilled workman ship with the tombs made by
the vast blocks and there still isn't much of an answer really. I am very
skeptical about any of the answers given so far.
The methods used for mummification of thos ancient bodies has been lost.
They're still trying to work out how the pyramids of Giza could be built
in the pattern of the stars of Orion's belt. They also have trouble dating
the tombs and the whole history of the Pharoahs.
There are tons of interesting ideas and they are held together in a
mismatched way.
What can I believe firmly there. There are a great number of things in
that realm that connect together and a number of things that don't.
>>The world where ideas are generated and explored means a great deal for
>>me. Like a kind of mythology. or a set of mental concepts and possibilities
>>to live with. I'm thinking about Scott's statement that Alien 2 would have
>>been for the sci-fi buff while Alien one was an enjoyable thriller.
>
>Where is this world where ideas are generated and explored? I call
>mine, Earth.
Studios set out for film, photographic, graphic, dance, painting, TV
etcetera, and any other place where people set out to look for and at ideas
>
>>This film Alien, with all its details does the same thing for me as Blade
>>Runner and David Lynch films, and, novels by Kafka and the book Ovid's
>>Metamorphosis.
>
>Which would be...what? Or am I just supposed to guess at your
>emotional reactions? Ovid's "Metamorphosis?"
>
Make me find ways to look into the origins of the ideas in the collective
unconsciouness, and find patterns within and then see if there is a way to
reuse what it there and intergrate it in one's own drawing studies. There
begins a template for the language of ideas.
>>One may as well go on and look at detail after detail and see if there is
>>a familiarity about their arrangements and use this whole thing as a
>>pattern of thought to look at in other people's ideas. And there is a
>>strange gap in between people's theories and the final answer from the
>>person who created the mystery, which is always of interest.
>
>To you, maybe. As an artist, I see people putting their own
>interpretation on stuff all the time. Are they wrong? Not at all.
>Communication is tricky stuff at times and artistic symbolism doesn't
>mean the same thing to everyone. However, if the artistic intent and
>the public perception are so different that the point of the piece is
>missed, then the artist has failed. Ridley Scott is a great director,
>but if you need to do research in order to understand his films, he
>would be a failure. Fortunately, one doesn't have to do that research.
>His films are perfectly undertstandable simply by viewing them.
>
As I've said before, if you want to be seperate from what's actually going
on in the ideas behind the film and you want to make your own
interpretation, go ahead. And there is indeed a lot to interpret without
being expected to know what's going on in the intricate details.
People putting their own opinions to other people's work is fine if that
person giving the opinion is interesting enough to be heard, if that person
has something from
his/her own background that comes out showing how he/she has a
realtionship with the piece of art.
I only find that people might try to state something about their own
emotions or talk about artists that they know about that they think might
interest me, in view of my own work, and sometimes this is useful or
useless. And what they might state might be an opinion that lasts for about
five seconds.
And when it seems that Scott's films were geared to showing as much
information as possible, I can only want to go deep into the places where
all the informaton was captured, and see how the production crew attempted
to put everything together.
I think that seeing how things developed into what they finally are is
very important and it appears to be neccessary in order to find out what
the language used in some of the background ideas was all about.
>
>
>>>I don't care that much about the ideas in Alien, frankly. It was just
>>>a good movie, okay? It's not the basis of my life's philosphy fer
>>>chrissakes.
>
>>There is a philosophy that one may as well explore in dealing with ideas
>>and concepts that one might find to be of interest, and look at the way
>>that people gathered together to put them together. Then there are the
>>people who are involved in the design works who are famous names in their
>>fields, like Giger, Cobb, Moebius and also Voss, and these people are like
>>living legends.
>
>Really? I've NEVER heard of Geiger outside of the Alien film. Who's
>Cobb and Voss? Moebius..is that like the Moebius Strip? They may be
>living legends to YOU but don't presume the rest of the world has even
>heard of them. Since when did designers become philosphers? What great
>philosophy has Geiger come up with lately?
Jean 'Moebius' Giraud is a comic book illustrator who illustrated for the
magazines Heavy Metal and Metal Hurlant amongst others. Giger is a Swiss
Surrealist and Ron Cobb and Chris Voss are both Sciencefiction artists.
Voss has illustated for Heavy Metal as well. Dan O'Bannon the Alien film's
original script writer has written stories for Heavy Metal, and Jean-Pierre
Jeunet's former co-director Marc Caro has been a comic book illustrator for
Metal Hurlant ( which is Heavy Metal's french counterpart)
They are very famous in the science fiction world and very influential too.
The magazine Heavy Metal was a great inspiration to Ridley Scott, and
perhaps still is. Moebius has been a heavy influence of Scott's film imagery.
>
>>As there isn't much art language to share amongst people like there was
>>during the time when people sculpted painted warriors, maidens,monsters,
>>cherubim, seraphim, goddesses, gods, nyads,dryads and harmadryads and other
>>things that appear in commonly accepted mythologies, Alien has given a new
>>wave to ideas about mythology and people have been ripping it off ever
>>since to express the darkest side of themselves, because of the Giger
>>monsters and all the ideas that go on within the designs of them
>
>Bullshit. Obviously you aren't an artist. Did you think those symbols
>just suddenly disappeared from the face of the planet? That we no
>longer understand Mythology? I work on a daily basis with these
>symbols and more. Your presumptions are incorrect.
They seem to be used less and less, they didn't talk to me too much about
them during my days at art college. The old Mythology isn't so popular and
people are inventing a kind of a new mythology that reflects the modern
day. Of course all the old stuff is around the corner, you find it in the
book shops,reprints of ancient tomes and one's that have been put together
in the last fifty years or so.
Of course we have the modern Hercules TV series and then there's the
Sinbad series. But I haven't seen much of it happening in art. There's not
so much of it in the Royal Academy Summer exhibition. We don't have
mythological sculptures coming out of the studios with the enthusiasm that
there has been
Disney has made cartoon about Hercules, and this is recent.
But any real works of retelling of Classical Mythology has been rare.
There are books about mythology, but we don't have too much of it in art
these days. We may have vague ideas about it, I don't see too much future
for it, and people are creating new mythologies like Batman putting it in a
more important place, and maybe it's not usable because of copywrite laws.
What country are you in? I'm very interested in the idea of you using
mythology in everyday work, I must be in the wrong country.
>
>>They seem to be involved in a modern expression of mythical feelings, and
>>so for some of us it is important to see what the original ideas were
>>about, just as it is to find out the origins of Greek Classical Myths.
>
>Do you think human emotions have changed in the last say...10 thousand
>years? I don't. I think we're basically the same creatures we were
>then and that classical symbolism serves us just as well as some
>German illustrator's could...even better.
Human ideas have changed.
As I've said for a number of years we haven't use classical mythology so
much. We seem have ghosts of ideas of that realm . Several years back, when
Gilliam used classical mythological ideas for The Adventures of Baron
Munchausen for example, it seemed almost a totally new concept, as it did
with Greenaway's Prospero's Books. We don't get too much of it these days
you know in Cinema although we might in the sculptures and old paintings in
the art galleries and old buildings.
>
>>And so, with the Alien film, there were all these secret elaborate ideas
>>that were scattered around the film in large quantities, and they are not
>>important to how the film ran as a story, the viewed story was the most
>>important thing, and it made sense and yet there were all these odd things
>>that didn't make sense on closer inspection, and there is a way to find out
>>if you want.
>
>I don't. They weren't relevant to the film, so they mean NOTHING.
>Geiger hasn't promoted any philophies that I'm aware of. His symbols
>are nothing more than interesting designs unless and until he can make
>his symbology universally understood and accepted. Communication is a
>two-way street.
>
The ideas were relevant to a lot of people.
Giger the Swiss Surrealist promotes a certain kind of philosophy in his
work and his interviews. I like his paintings, I've got quite a few books
of his work. Doctors buy his works to put in their waiting rooms. People
often find his work to hold the key to many of their emotional problems but
there are other things too.
And one can live with the world he creates and the humour and fascination
it holds, and there's some level of thinking to be involved with..
>
>>I think that we may as well have access to all these bits of information.
>>I think that the mind was able to pick it up intuitively, and then it's a
>>question of finding all these little broken bits of facts to put together
>>and it was really fun and I like to do it with a lot of other things and
>>Alien has been a source of entertainment.
>
>Unless the symbolism is universally understood, then the little bits
>of information that you seem to think are out there...are doing
>absolutely NO GOOD. You can put all kinds of symbols around but unless
>the viewer understands them and their context, they become
>meaningless, even unseen. You can't get it "intuitively" unless you
>understand that the item HAS meaning beforehand. There is no universal
>mind that automatically understands ideosyncratic symbology.
>
They do some good for those who wish to dream about Alien original world
of ideas. You can see things on the other hand in the film that hopefully
may touch on your darkest emotions and register emotionally, and you might
find the way that various things compare with things in our world.
You can get it intuitively, you get the feel of the colours and shapes. I
took it intuitively since having first set eyes on an Alien Toy when I was
nine or ten years old, it grabbed me and I was so inspired by the
biomechanic pattern and the way the creature looked like it was half
humanoid and half mechanical engine with the motorbike engine pipes running
along its head, and the exhaust pipes out of its back and the way the jaw
tongue shot out and went back in, and the human skull seen underneath the
transparent covering across the head
It was a thing full of fantasies about genetic secrets in my little
opinion, a futuristic frankenstein monster where the form of Kane's skull
could have been copied and incorperated into the structue of the alien
head, and everything had a meaning and a question, and I had only half
glimpsed the books on alien at that stage, and I was overjoyed to look at
the further ideas and inventions about ten years later when I could afford
and find ways to collect all the material needed for the explanations.
Once I found the explanations that I wanted, then I could go on and do
something else, and look back on the pieces of information in a stat of
happiness, and then use the same method of thinking to look at other ideas
in the alien world that haven't been totally defined.
>
>It seems even sadder to me that you feel you have to find the answers
>to life in film. Two hours doesn't leave much time for philosophizing
>but I guess that's what we like, instant gratification. The average
>filmgoer has nothing to find out from films because THEY ARE
>ENTERTAINMENT. If you want philosophy, read a book, talk to another
>human being, but don't go to a movie.
>
I am very happy that the Alien was made by thinking people. I'm happy that
art was something important in this film, and art can do wonderful things
for a lot of people.
I'm happy that Steve Martin in a film had a line where he mentioned
something to the effect that everything you've ever asked about life has
been answered in a film.
Larry Campbell
In article <wsmiii-1809...@clv-oh24-03.ix.netcom.com>,
wsm...@ix.netcom.com (William Miller) wrote:
> (Should that be a "leader", not a "trailer", anyway? Where'd that name
> come from?)
I prefer the term "teaser."
TarlaStar
wmvrr...@aol.com (Wmvrrvrrmm) wrote:
<snip>
>>>Well, I am. and I don't see too many ideas coming out of you with much
>>>impact, and I have read nearly none of your previous e-mails.
>>
>>I don't write e-mail to people I haven't established a relationship
>>with. I post. And you won't see many of MY creative ideas unless
>>you're willing to pay for them.
>Well, we e-mail into the newsgroup and then we have all the e-mails coming
>through the newsgroups, so we are writing e-mails to be read by a
>collection of people who subscribe to the alt.cult-movies.alien
E-mail is electronic mail that goes directly into your internet
mailbox. What we do here....is called posting, not e-mail. The two are
NOT the same.
>>>>>In a sequal, they would have tried to make the thing much better if Giger
>>>>>and Scott had been employed.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe yes, maybe no.
>>
>>>Well Giger said that he would have tried to make it much better in an
>>>interview if he were involved.
>>
>>Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
>It can be a boring thing too.
>Giger was trying to foresee the possobilities of what he could do if her
>were left to go further, and, his theory is that he would only improve on
>the work he has done if committed to it, which I have no dount in. He would
>have gained from his experiences with Alien and gone faster into the
>production of what he wanted to create and he would have been able to
>finish more, so the theory goes.
That theory only works if Giger is working all by himself. In the real
world, there are producers, directors and other production staff to
deal with.
>There would have also been a bigger budget too, and more faith in Giger's
>ideas perhaps when they were good.
What...all of a sudden Giger's ideas are no longer any good? You can't
guarantee that there would have been ANY budget, much less a bigger
one. That's what I meant about hindsight....I woulda had more money, I
had all these great ideas, I could have gone faster....yadda yadda
yadda.
>>>Your wasting you time trying to find out these endless questions that just
>>>seem to be exploring the whole realm of the alien and it's biology and the
>>>history of the things like the space jockey and why the derelict looks
>>>biomechanised. Yes.
>>
>>You haven't been reading very closely. *I* haven't examined a thing
>>about the Alien. It can't be done. It hasn't been shown on film. What
>>I HAVE done is discuss the fact that human biology and expectations
>>are not necessarily what xenobiology and alien expectations would be.
>>It's taken very little of my time and absolutely no research was
>>necessary since much of this stuff was crammed nicely into my head in
>>college. It hasn't cost me a dime (beyond what I already pay for
>>internet service).
>The 'Your' which should have been ' You're ' at the beginning of that
>paragraph there from me was a collective you, as it was as answer in
>response to you referring to yourself as being amongst a collective "we",
>unless that is you are a member of royalty, and I wouldn't have known that
Well, in that case it should have been "Your" since "your" IS both
singular and plural. "You're" is a contraction of the two words "You"
and "are." In other words, "your" is possessive no matter how many
people you're referring to, and "you're" is simply a short way of
saying "you are."
>>>If you think about what Scott has said and you get it wrong and someone
>>>else can tell you then that's the truth.
>>
>>It doesn't matter what Scott said if it doesn't show up on the screen.
>>I adore Ridley Scott, but I can see what's in front of me and I will
>>not be told that what I'm seeing is not what's really going on. What
>>if Ridley Scott said in an interview that Ripley's secretly an alien
>>and that's why she survived the first film? Hmmm? Would that suddenly
>>change what you saw on screen?
>Really, that wasn't a very good idea from you.
You aren't paying me for my ideas. I've already explained that to you.
Besides, that wasn't so much a story idea as it was a working example.
>> No, of course not. If there was no
>>evidence in the film to show that Ripley was alien...then she wasn't.
>>It may have been Scott's intention to show any number of things, but
>>if he didn't get it up on screen...it doesn't count for diddly.
>Scott's ideas pertaining to the original Alien film, even now, hold firm
>to the level of questioning and definition that he used for the original film.
What? Say this again in English, please.
>>
>>Try taking an anthropology course. It's neither unreasonable nor
>>impossible and the feat has been repeated.
>>
>If you visited the tombs in the great Pyramid of Giza amd talked with the
>experts who had all these amazing hypothesise, they would only be able to
>go so far, and then look at the skilled workman ship with the tombs made by
>the vast blocks and there still isn't much of an answer really. I am very
>skeptical about any of the answers given so far.
Be skeptical all you please, there have been practical experiments
which prove that the pyramids were engineered and created by ordinary
humans in ordinary ways.
>The methods used for mummification of thos ancient bodies has been lost.
>They're still trying to work out how the pyramids of Giza could be built
>in the pattern of the stars of Orion's belt. They also have trouble dating
>the tombs and the whole history of the Pharoahs.
No it hasn't. Christ, we've known how to mummify for thousands of
years. This isn't LOST knowlege. Go read "Crime and Punishment." We
also know how to date the tombs and pretty much the entire history of
the Pharohs. I don't know what idiot you were talking to, but these
aren't mysteries to anthropologists/Egyptologists.
>>
>>Which would be...what? Or am I just supposed to guess at your
>>emotional reactions? Ovid's "Metamorphosis?"
>>
>Make me find ways to look into the origins of the ideas in the collective
>unconsciouness, and find patterns within and then see if there is a way to
>reuse what it there and intergrate it in one's own drawing studies. There
>begins a template for the language of ideas.
There is no collective unconscious. If you want to understand
language, I suggest you read Chomsky and leave Giger out of it. If you
just want to draw and get into the movies, you really don't have to do
this much research, you just have to have some talent and a
connection. You aren't going to get either by studying Giger.
>>>One may as well go on and look at detail after detail and see if there is
>>>a familiarity about their arrangements and use this whole thing as a
>>>pattern of thought to look at in other people's ideas. And there is a
>>>strange gap in between people's theories and the final answer from the
>>>person who created the mystery, which is always of interest.
>>
>>To you, maybe. As an artist, I see people putting their own
>>interpretation on stuff all the time. Are they wrong? Not at all.
>>Communication is tricky stuff at times and artistic symbolism doesn't
>>mean the same thing to everyone. However, if the artistic intent and
>>the public perception are so different that the point of the piece is
>>missed, then the artist has failed. Ridley Scott is a great director,
>>but if you need to do research in order to understand his films, he
>>would be a failure. Fortunately, one doesn't have to do that research.
>>His films are perfectly undertstandable simply by viewing them.
>>
>As I've said before, if you want to be seperate from what's actually going
>on in the ideas behind the film and you want to make your own
>interpretation, go ahead. And there is indeed a lot to interpret without
>being expected to know what's going on in the intricate details.
>People putting their own opinions to other people's work is fine if that
>person giving the opinion is interesting enough to be heard, if that person
>has something from
>his/her own background that comes out showing how he/she has a
>realtionship with the piece of art.
Do you have a relationship with the Pieta? Do you know what the
sculpture is of? Does one have to have something particular in their
background to appreciate the human emotions which are displayed? I
DON'T THINK SO. If on the other hand, you're saying that one has to be
a sculptor equal to Michaelangelo in order to make comment on the
Pieta, then the world would have been silent about it, up to and
including this day.
>I only find that people might try to state something about their own
>emotions or talk about artists that they know about that they think might
>interest me, in view of my own work, and sometimes this is useful or
>useless. And what they might state might be an opinion that lasts for about
>five seconds.
Anyone who listens to the opinions of those they don't respect is a
fool.
>>Really? I've NEVER heard of Geiger outside of the Alien film. Who's
>>Cobb and Voss? Moebius..is that like the Moebius Strip? They may be
>>living legends to YOU but don't presume the rest of the world has even
>>heard of them. Since when did designers become philosphers? What great
>>philosophy has Geiger come up with lately?
>Jean 'Moebius' Giraud is a comic book illustrator who illustrated for the
>magazines Heavy Metal and Metal Hurlant amongst others. Giger is a Swiss
>Surrealist and Ron Cobb and Chris Voss are both Sciencefiction artists.
Ahhh all GREAT philosophers!
>Voss has illustated for Heavy Metal as well. Dan O'Bannon the Alien film's
>original script writer has written stories for Heavy Metal, and Jean-Pierre
>Jeunet's former co-director Marc Caro has been a comic book illustrator for
>Metal Hurlant ( which is Heavy Metal's french counterpart)
And I'm supposed to base a life's philosophy on the ramblings and
drawings of a bunch of comic book artists? Look, pal, I have a friend
who's a "serial art illustrator" for HBO. He draws for both the
"Spawn" series and "Spicy City." I love the guy to death, but I sure
as fuck wouldn't turn to him for philosophical advice.
>They are very famous in the science fiction world and very influential too.
Influential? On whom?
>The magazine Heavy Metal was a great inspiration to Ridley Scott, and
>perhaps still is. Moebius has been a heavy influence of Scott's film imagery.
Visual influence, perhaps, but philosophy? Get real.
>>>As there isn't much art language to share amongst people like there was
>>>during the time when people sculpted painted warriors, maidens,monsters,
>>>cherubim, seraphim, goddesses, gods, nyads,dryads and harmadryads and other
>>>things that appear in commonly accepted mythologies, Alien has given a new
>>>wave to ideas about mythology and people have been ripping it off ever
>>>since to express the darkest side of themselves, because of the Giger
>>>monsters and all the ideas that go on within the designs of them
>>
>>Bullshit. Obviously you aren't an artist. Did you think those symbols
>>just suddenly disappeared from the face of the planet? That we no
>>longer understand Mythology? I work on a daily basis with these
>>symbols and more. Your presumptions are incorrect.
>They seem to be used less and less, they didn't talk to me too much about
>them during my days at art college.
Yeah? and how many teachers in your art college actually made their
living at ART instead of teaching? They can't teach what they can't
do. Besides, Art College doesn't cover the broad range of educational
subjects that a University would have. Focusing too much attention on
one area (say drawing) detracts from one's ablity to gather general
knowlege. I bet they didn't talk much about running an art business
either. You can't teach what you don't know.
> The old Mythology isn't so popular and
>people are inventing a kind of a new mythology that reflects the modern
>day. Of course all the old stuff is around the corner, you find it in the
>book shops,reprints of ancient tomes and one's that have been put together
>in the last fifty years or so.
>Of course we have the modern Hercules TV series and then there's the
>Sinbad series. But I haven't seen much of it happening in art. There's not
>so much of it in the Royal Academy Summer exhibition. We don't have
>mythological sculptures coming out of the studios with the enthusiasm that
>there has been
That's because there aren't that many of us who are willing to go
through the time, pain and difficulty of learning how to create
monumental sculpture. I believe, however, that there is a new
Rennaissance coming.
Europeans used to disparage Americans because "you have no culture."
So we invented our own art form, "modern abstraction," and ran hard
with it for close to sixty years. That's long enough...for me and many
other people. Now the time has come to return to realism and idealism.
>Disney has made cartoon about Hercules, and this is recent.
>But any real works of retelling of Classical Mythology has been rare.
>There are books about mythology, but we don't have too much of it in art
>these days. We may have vague ideas about it, I don't see too much future
>for it, and people are creating new mythologies like Batman putting it in a
>more important place, and maybe it's not usable because of copywrite laws.
Copyright laws? On stories that are over 3000 years old? Get a grip.
>What country are you in? I'm very interested in the idea of you using
>mythology in everyday work, I must be in the wrong country.
I'm in America, Oklahoma U.S.A. and right now, I'm working on the
plans for a full-sized statue of Psyche raising the lantern. I work
with the great sculptor, Paul Moore.
>>
>>>They seem to be involved in a modern expression of mythical feelings, and
>>>so for some of us it is important to see what the original ideas were
>>>about, just as it is to find out the origins of Greek Classical Myths.
>>
>>Do you think human emotions have changed in the last say...10 thousand
>>years? I don't. I think we're basically the same creatures we were
>>then and that classical symbolism serves us just as well as some
>>German illustrator's could...even better.
>Human ideas have changed.
Give me an example. If you're talking about scientific ideas, I'd
agree, but I thought we were discussing human philosophy (in a manner
of speaking). If we're discussing human emotional reactions, then I'd
disagree. Humans are basically the same as they've been for 50,000
years. We have the same basic emotions as we always have.
>As I've said for a number of years we haven't use classical mythology so
>much. We seem have ghosts of ideas of that realm . Several years back, when
>Gilliam used classical mythological ideas for The Adventures of Baron
>Munchausen for example, it seemed almost a totally new concept, as it did
>with Greenaway's Prospero's Books. We don't get too much of it these days
>you know in Cinema although we might in the sculptures and old paintings in
>the art galleries and old buildings.
You're talking about using classical symbolism in film? It's there all
the time. It's just not in your face. Is not Ripley a form of Athena,
intelligent warrior goddess?
>>
>>>And so, with the Alien film, there were all these secret elaborate ideas
>>>that were scattered around the film in large quantities, and they are not
>>>important to how the film ran as a story, the viewed story was the most
>>>important thing, and it made sense and yet there were all these odd things
>>>that didn't make sense on closer inspection, and there is a way to find out
>>>if you want.
>>
>>I don't. They weren't relevant to the film, so they mean NOTHING.
>>Geiger hasn't promoted any philophies that I'm aware of. His symbols
>>are nothing more than interesting designs unless and until he can make
>>his symbology universally understood and accepted. Communication is a
>>two-way street.
>>
>The ideas were relevant to a lot of people.
>Giger the Swiss Surrealist promotes a certain kind of philosophy in his
>work and his interviews. I like his paintings, I've got quite a few books
>of his work. Doctors buy his works to put in their waiting rooms. People
>often find his work to hold the key to many of their emotional problems but
>there are other things too.
Oh please...the key to their emotional problems? Then why the HELL
isn't Giger being used in every psychologist/psychiatrist's office in
the country? You know, doctors buy Native American watercolor CRAP by
R.C. Gorman to put into their waiting rooms too. Leroy Neiman makes a
living for goddsakes! There's no accounting for taste, pal.
>You can get it intuitively, you get the feel of the colours and shapes. I
>took it intuitively since having first set eyes on an Alien Toy when I was
>nine or ten years old, it grabbed me and I was so inspired by the
>biomechanic pattern and the way the creature looked like it was half
>humanoid and half mechanical engine with the motorbike engine pipes running
>along its head, and the exhaust pipes out of its back and the way the jaw
>tongue shot out and went back in, and the human skull seen underneath the
>transparent covering across the head
It may have sparked your imagination, but as I said, unless the
symbols are more universally understood, have a common meaning for a
large number of people, then they are simply ideosyncratic.
>I'm happy that Steve Martin in a film had a line where he mentioned
>something to the effect that everything you've ever asked about life has
>been answered in a film.
Ever hear the word "facetious?"
Wmvrrvrrmm
>E-mail is electronic mail that goes directly into your internet
>mailbox. What we do here....is called posting, not e-mail. The two are
>NOT the same.
These postings are electronic, as e-mail is, and they come in the form of
mail that e-mail is
RE: Giger making better creations for Alien 2
>
>That theory only works if Giger is working all by himself. In the real
>world, there are producers, directors and other production staff to
>deal with.
I assume that this would not affect the quality of Giger's work if there
is good communication between himself and co-worker, and good production
standards as their were in the first film, and indeed in the second.
>What...all of a sudden Giger's ideas are no longer any good? You can't
>guarantee that there would have been ANY budget, much less a bigger
>one. That's what I meant about hindsight....I woulda had more money, I
>had all these great ideas, I could have gone faster....yadda yadda
>yadda.
>
All of a sudden, Giger is working on the sequel to Species, which wasn't a
very good film in my own opinion. He was asked to work on the most recent
Star Trek movie but he said no, because they were just trying to validate
what they ripped off from him, and in the third Batman film, he was asked
to work on the Batmobile and they didn't like his work, they offered no
suggestion about alterations that they liked and then simply ripped him off
with the Biomechanic motifs.
In Alien III, they asked him to design an alien and he built a full scale
sculpture of one, they didn't use it, they used a piece of rubbish instead
that was based on Giger's latest ideas and old paintings and he wasn't duly
credited.
>>>>Your wasting you time trying to find out these endless questions that just
>>>>seem to be exploring the whole realm of the alien and it's biology and the
>>>>history of the things like the space jockey and why the derelict looks
>>>>biomechanised. Yes.
>>>
>>>You haven't been reading very closely. *I* haven't examined a thing
>>>about the Alien. It can't be done. It hasn't been shown on film. What
>>>I HAVE done is discuss the fact that human biology and expectations
>>>are not necessarily what xenobiology and alien expectations would be.
>>>It's taken very little of my time and absolutely no research was
>>>necessary since much of this stuff was crammed nicely into my head in
>>>college. It hasn't cost me a dime (beyond what I already pay for
>>>internet service).
>
>>The 'Your' which should have been ' You're ' at the beginning of that
>>paragraph there from me was a collective you, as it was as answer in
>>response to you referring to yourself as being amongst a collective "we",
>>unless that is you are a member of royalty, and I wouldn't have known that
>
>Well, in that case it should have been "Your" since "your" IS both
>singular and plural. "You're" is a contraction of the two words "You"
>and "are." In other words, "your" is possessive no matter how many
>people you're referring to, and "you're" is simply a short way of
>saying "you are."
>
And this is how we took it, both refer to singular and plural!
You is used in singular and plural in England, I'm not too sure about in
America
RE:The idea about Scott saying that Ripley was an alien
>
>>Really, that wasn't a very good idea from you.
>
>You aren't paying me for my ideas. I've already explained that to you.
>Besides, that wasn't so much a story idea as it was a working example.
As a working example, we would have more information given by Scott to why
she was an alien and how he made such a decision. There would be an
inventive rationality behind it which he used in the alien, and well it
wouldn't have gone that direction, there was nothing to point one there.
And then in Alien4, we have a clone of Ripley mixed with biomechanoid DNA
that couldn't have happened in the first film because there wasn't a
situation involving a cloned Ripley
>>Scott's ideas pertaining to the original Alien film, even now, hold firm
>>to the level of questioning and definition that he used for the original
>film.
>
>What? Say this again in English, please.
>
>>>
Scott's ideas involving the original Alien film, even now, hold firm to
the way he questioned and defined ideas in the original film
RE: Skepticism
>
>Be skeptical all you please, there have been practical experiments
>which prove that the pyramids were engineered and created by ordinary
>humans in ordinary ways.
There are a lot of examples of how these pyramids were built. if we have a
program showing how pyramids are built on TV, we have more than one idea
given and a number of them are good methods, possible and then impossible.
Looking at the engineering and the way that the block are so skillfully
placed as one can see from the tombs, I'm not sure if we'll ever find that
kind of technology again.
I'm hoping to find a good old fashioned ordinary way in the future, or at
least any way that will make the building of such a cyclopean structure
manageable. I have heard that there is one pyramid built over another over
another and it was continuously buitl upon.It's hard to claim what it was
originally for, while there are orthodox ideas about how it occurred and
good healthy arguements declaring it to be impossible by an engineering
view point, and then we can only make good healthy ideas open to argument
and development until something with more substance comes along which will
hold better, which may never come.
>
Re:Lost Knowledge
>No it hasn't. Christ, we've known how to mummify for thousands of
>years. This isn't LOST knowlege. Go read "Crime and Punishment." We
>also know how to date the tombs and pretty much the entire history of
>the Pharohs. I don't know what idiot you were talking to, but these
>aren't mysteries to anthropologists/Egyptologists.
>
Anthropologists/Egyptologists will work with orthodox theories and then
one will come along and find out that the sphinx had been weathered down by
water erosion, and this seem to make sense when it was compared to other
forms of erosion , and it dated the Sphinx by this method to a much
earlier time than was possibly imagined. There seemed to be a basis behind
it and it showed that the human head was carved at a much later date but
did not seem to show the head of the man that it was presumed to show.
So there has been a problem dating it and if there's an official change
made because of the probable hypothesis made final in the last few years,
(which may be unlikely looking at the way the person finished his great big
theory) then what can we say about the methods of analysis made in the past.
There are claims that some still have the knowledge of embalming bodies in
an effective manner and then it doesn't seem to come out, it may be a
secret kept by groups of people who hand the secret on.I thought that a
former Chinese president had been embalmed using the method of embalming
used by the ancient Egyptians but then I read that what we saw of the
Chinese President wasn't real. We can look at the chemicals in the
laboratories, but I don't know if we can reproduce the actual formula and
methods used to gain the desired effect.
I also read Egyptians in general started to loose the knowledge about
embalming properly. I don't know if that was a real fact.
And all this information that I know may as well be absolute lies as far
as I'm concerned. I don't appear to be too bothered to look beyond the veil
because I would
who is more right than any one else other than the people who used the
methods to build and embalm right from the beginning.
Looking at the dating of the Pharoah's history.I know that there was some
man in the last couple of years who wanted to show how the dates were
incorrect, and that there was truth in biblical references that were
overlooked and he found various pieces of references within tombs and
exterior hieroglyphs and other old ruins to back up his evidence.The person
was boring but he was good as far as I could see, and I can't claim to be
much of a judge though. We may as well look at the possibility of his
findings as relevant even though the other exprets were unwilling to give
his data any acknowledgement. For me, this has thrown a veil over the whole
dating system, and so there is the possblity that there might be an end the
situation within the next several years.
I've heard of "crime and punishment", can you tell me if there is only one
book with such a title
>>>
>>>Which would be...what? Or am I just supposed to guess at your
>>>emotional reactions? Ovid's "Metamorphosis?"
>>>
>
>>Make me find ways to look into the origins of the ideas in the collective
>>unconsciouness, and find patterns within and then see if there is a way to
>>reuse what it there and intergrate it in one's own drawing studies. There
>>begins a template for the language of ideas.
>
>There is no collective unconscious. If you want to understand
>language, I suggest you read Chomsky and leave Giger out of it. If you
>just want to draw and get into the movies, you really don't have to do
>this much research, you just have to have some talent and a
>connection. You aren't going to get either by studying Giger.
>
I may as well study Giger and any other artist that I make connections
between and get some value out of heading in my research
I think that Giger fantasises about genetic memory, and things locked away
in the genes such as inherited memoriesthat are handed down.
I'm an avid fan of the collective unconsciousness though. something that
one can link into and then one comes up with a weird idea and then someone
else one bumps into has exactly the same idea, but it came through in a
different way, which leads to all sorts of problems about where the idea
came from.
I like ideas that float around and more than one person gets them and you
can compare the way each person got that idea. Of course there are ideas
come out of people's personal lives.
RE;Other people voicing there own opinions on art work
>Do you have a relationship with the Pieta? Do you know what the
>sculpture is of? Does one have to have something particular in their
>background to appreciate the human emotions which are displayed? I
>DON'T THINK SO. If on the other hand, you're saying that one has to be
>a sculptor equal to Michaelangelo in order to make comment on the
>Pieta, then the world would have been silent about it, up to and
>including this day.
To translate what I said into perhaps a more normal statement, just
something in their background , that they have experienced in life that
they connect or relate with the sculpture. With the Alien, I look at it as
a sculpture, I can only think how it is a kind of bionic monster, and it
filled me as a child with the kind of enthusiasm that one has for something
like the Bionic man. And then I don't have much of a value for monsters,
other than vicious animals with teeth or creatures that spread disease and
then fear of technology and the possibility that in a few decades time we
might all have little micro-chips recording every thought that we have in
our minds. There has been a cockroach connected to some little machine that
can control the cockroaches movements and this seemed horrific, this seemed
to be a beginning stage for a cruellest form of biomechanoid that ought to
have been in a Giger book.
But this is the way it shows itself in my culture and it might erupt as
something else in other people's culture like demons of the spirit world
which show up to a great degree in Giger's paintings to be valued under one
source of interpretation or another.
>
>>I only find that people might try to state something about their own
>>emotions or talk about artists that they know about that they think might
>>interest me, in view of my own work, and sometimes this is useful or
>>useless. And what they might state might be an opinion that lasts for about
>>five seconds.
>
>Anyone who listens to the opinions of those they don't respect is a
>fool.
>
I guess what I mean is that the opinions given by the person might be a
statement that they probably will change shortly afterwards. I listen to a
lot of opinions because there aren't many people with opinions that I know
of, so I as a beggar for opinions can not be a chooser of opinions.
>
>>Jean 'Moebius' Giraud is a comic book illustrator who illustrated for the
>>magazines Heavy Metal and Metal Hurlant amongst others. Giger is a Swiss
>>Surrealist and Ron Cobb and Chris Voss are both Sciencefiction artists.
>
>Ahhh all GREAT philosophers!
>
Well, I love the interviews they give, through their pictures though they
communicate a philosophy, creative visual philosophy, questions about the
ultimate reality. If you can recognise something about what they feel,then
that is good, but it's not so important, if you want to go your own way and
just see how it hits you from another angle that may enter into your
subconscious and formulate an opinion.
RE: A bunch of names of people who illustrate and paint.
>And I'm supposed to base a life's philosophy on the ramblings and
>drawings of a bunch of comic book artists? Look, pal, I have a friend
>who's a "serial art illustrator" for HBO. He draws for both the
>"Spawn" series and "Spicy City." I love the guy to death, but I sure
>as fuck wouldn't turn to him for philosophical advice.
>
I doubt know if he'll ever have the same following as the people that I've
mentioned, well not today at least. There are a number of people who's
general philosophy I like but I wouldn't bother to wonder about it.
I think one can ask the local newspaper salesman about his philosophical
views, sometimes there may be great statements coming out of him or there
might not.
>
>>They are very famous in the science fiction world and very influential too.
>
>Influential? On whom?
Film makers, writers, artists, people who might have read omni and just
payused to wonder at some of the paintings
>
>>The magazine Heavy Metal was a great inspiration to Ridley Scott, and
>>perhaps still is. Moebius has been a heavy influence of Scott's film
>imagery.
>
>Visual influence, perhaps, but philosophy? Get real.
>
Well, Moebius is generally seen as a seeker after wisdom by most of the
people who are great fans of his. He lets his mind go off into other realms
of reality and comes back with them. He has allowed his work to mix in with
ideas about inner wisdom, often inspired by other sources but the end
product is from him, looking at issues about humanity to some degree.
We can look on his visual influence on Scott as a visual philosophy, a way
to look at life.His ideas are so powerful that Fellini a fan of his refused
to work with him because Moebius' ideas would simply take over the whole.
It seems to be a wordless philosophy and expands the mental horizons to a
certain degree.
And then he has worked with Alexandro Jodorowsky on comic illustration pieces
which have a philosophical content. But what comes out seems to be perhaps
a brand of 'new age' mysticism, with Jodorowsky being into Yogi-Guruism and
both of them being thoughtful about concepts from this Don Juan person.
What bubble up isn't everyone's idea of philosophy.
Giger's pictures often are feelings and such that seem to reflect ideas
about the primeordial parts of our being, and interaction with machinary,
perhaps in the latter being inspired by the philosophy of Marshall McLuhan,
and the late Timothy Leary was a good friend and inspiration. People can
appreciate the latters' names because of their philisophical ideas. Giger
does like to surround himself with a lot of inventive thinkers and people
who study life in very strange ways who find that they can find ideas
within his work..
>
>Yeah? and how many teachers in your art college actually made their
>living at ART instead of teaching? They can't teach what they can't
>do. Besides, Art College doesn't cover the broad range of educational
>subjects that a University would have. Focusing too much attention on
>one area (say drawing) detracts from one's ablity to gather general
>knowlege. I bet they didn't talk much about running an art business
>either. You can't teach what you don't know.
Most of them worked outside the college. There were some very very good
illustrators, graphic designers and painters amongst other things, and
there were a number who were quite rich because of their success. There was
one teacher who worked for Saatchi and Saatchi. There was a teacher who had
designed the packet of a packet of sweets that were very popular, and we
had taken the design for granted every time we unwrapped the sweets. It was
strange the revelations that a lot of them would pop up with. One of them
worked on an expensive calendar every year and through his good work a
personal friend of Patrick Lichfield the photographer. There were a lot of
them with good connections and backgrounds.
It seemed that they were gladly giving up time to teach people which they
didn't need to do, but it gave them satisfaction
And there people in the pottery room were selling their work to Harrods.
Some people don't bother to think about the business side of it, and can
just go through their own uncommercial pathway through art, and just earn
the money through teaching skills to other people, and there were some
people brilliant at this.
I'm not worried about art not being commercial enough.
RE:Lack of mythical art work today.
>
>That's because there aren't that many of us who are willing to go
>through the time, pain and difficulty of learning how to create
>monumental sculpture. I believe, however, that there is a new
>Rennaissance coming.
>
Even small sculptures would do, but I do hope that there is another
Renaissance coming. I think that the world of art in England has almost
disintergrated, we are too amazed at the sight of dead cows and calfs cut
in half floating in tanks full of formaldihyde.
>Europeans used to disparage Americans because "you have no culture."
>So we invented our own art form, "modern abstraction," and ran hard
>with it for close to sixty years. That's long enough...for me and many
>other people. Now the time has come to return to realism and idealism.
>
This sounds beautiful
RE:Copyright laws? On stories that are over 3000 years old? Get a grip.
I meant that Batman isn't so usable because of copywrite laws. I guess the
idea of the man with the semi-appearance of a bat can be easily changed though.
RE:Where you are
>I'm in America, Oklahoma U.S.A. and right now, I'm working on the
>plans for a full-sized statue of Psyche raising the lantern. I work
>with the great sculptor, Paul Moore.
>
Wow! That's cheered me up!
Humans are basically the same as they've been for 50,000
>years. We have the same basic emotions as we always have.
>
We seem to have the same spectrum of emotions so to speak as we always
have, and is there anything we can say about it on that level to indicate
change.
RE:Talking about the use of classical mythology
>You're talking about using classical symbolism in film? It's there all
>the time. It's just not in your face. Is not Ripley a form of Athena,
>intelligent warrior goddess?
>
I like it in my face, otherwise it's too far away, and no one else knows
what I'm talking about. Regarding Ripley,the other day I read that she was
the Earth Goddess from one article on Alien3. If we can define her as a
mythical deity, it seems that it would be a ghost of an idea about Athena
may be a good idea. This would be a subjective opinion,but it's good if
others can see your point and but connection between Athena and Ripley
would be something left to the fact that your idea about connecting the two
has been honoured, with you as the one who has painted this connection, I
may as well honour your feeling as a human being making these connections ,
and then look into it as far as I can.I will get out my Robert Graves
dictionary of Mythology especially for you shortly.
RE:Giger as a bearer of keys to people's emotinal problems
>Oh please...the key to their emotional problems? Then why the HELL
>isn't Giger being used in every psychologist/psychiatrist's office in
>the country? You know, doctors buy Native American watercolor CRAP by
>R.C. Gorman to put into their waiting rooms too. Leroy Neiman makes a
>living for goddsakes! There's no accounting for taste, pal.
Giger isn't being used in every psychologist/ psychiatrists office in the
country because there would be no reason to. I find his work very
transformative in some of the ideas that it releases into the open that can
be viewed as fine to look at without it being banned,
Some people can be upset by his images because they don't want to
recognise some things in his work, and then there are lots and lots of
artists who have created pictures that are the key to opening up many
peoples emotional problems and find methods for transformation. many
artists delve into the language of the unconscious and many seem to offer a
language for others to use and so some of us will jump on the bandwagon and
make our own version of those images, in a way that is personal to ourselves
Of course it's about personal taste, and any piece of art form can really
spark off ideas in people's minds that will lead them somewhere for
personal transformation.
As it happens, some of Giger's paintings in their original form can be
used as tarot cards, and there is a set available. You might want to look
at a cornflake packet and it might serve you better, I don't know.
It would be a lot stranger to find a painting almost depicting a state of
horror in some doctor's waiting room that cost the equivalent of over a
thousand dollars.I think it's an amusing notion and so it will haunt my mind
I realise it's too much as an obvious thing about the key to people's
emotional problems. I like Timothy Leary's ideas about Giger's paintings
offering a key to the subconscious, he did a nice introduction to a Giger
book once, delving deep down into the development of the human brain in a
poetic way, and so to some degree Giger would be interested by what Leary
had to say.
RE:The fact that the Alien toy sparked off my imagination
>It may have sparked your imagination, but as I said, unless the
>symbols are more universally understood, have a common meaning for a
>large number of people, then they are simply ideosyncratic.
Well, it might not mean a lot to a native tribe of African's who were
asked to watch a film with a lot of things happening in it,and all they
understood was the image of a chicken somewhere in the film crossing the
screen. They might have a sculpture of the alien presented to them and they
might show the shaman who then might start waving things around it to
remove evil spirits and order the people to burn the sculpture
Then such an image might be understood as an archetype shared by people
who know about machinary, and seeing the creature's form in the light gives
us different impressions from just seeing it in dimly lit shots in the film
but there are some good shots, but without a copy of the video tape or the
chance to see the film over and over again, it is still hard to realise
what it being seen somewhat
The way it sparked my imagination helped me to break the idea of the
alien down to it's origins in the initial form of expression that it
erupted from, and so today I have a good track through the whole of the
first alien film and some of people's attempts to question its details in full.
it might spark another person's imagination to see them to the end of an
attempt to deal with the idea in another way.
Myself looking at what I knew personally about the alien doesn't really
mean much
unless it's something that leads onto the formation of a new idea that
seems valuable in other people's opinions. For some it takes on the idea of
a demon or devil, for some it seems to show ideas about evolution, like
perhaps the pipes out of the back might be undeveloped tentacles, and so it
seemed that on a cover of a Mad magazine for the film Aliens, the back
pipes were developed into tentacles.
It seemed that something like the idea was brought forward into
Independance day where the biomechanoids in that film had tentacles coming
out of the back.
Another thing was that in Giger's paintings, he might paint humanoids
hiding within the space within a long biomechnoid head, as if it were a
cocoon, and so there wer have the head of a biomechanoid in Independance
day erupting with a small humanoid within. The artist who worked on
independance day's monsters did drawings that were simply inspired by
Giger's art form. One could see that the artist was keen on Giger's way of
creating these things.
All it seems is that there's something strong in the idea of the alien,
and we can only compare it to shadows of the things we know. We can look at
it from various ways. We can see it as a hybrid of various things with a
monkey reptilian tale and a face that's a bit like a Piranha fish, and it
doesn't neccessaily have the latter in truth byt the fact is, some people
will continue to make the comparison out of having seen what a Piranha fish
looks like, and it's important to know that people will continue to see it
like that. Even if it's not a part of the original design
When we look at the final image of the alien, although it's mouth was
altered somewhat by Carlo Rambaldi who sculpted the final head, which Giger
wasn't too happy about, and perhaps the over all suit wasn't what was
planned for we have something that's more or less a captured idea.
We can go back to the original vaults of information magazines and films
to see what the ideas were from the people directly involved in the making
of Alien, and then we can see what sort of effect it has on the general
population and note all of their reactions and build an alternative picture
simply from that, and keep them as too seperate fields.
Without knowing too much about the film, people might look at the scene
of the derelict interior without too much of a connection, or they might
see it as being like the inside of a womb which they might have a
subconscious memory of, or a whale from seeing a book or cartoon about
Pinocchio, or even perhaps the inside of a giant version of the interior of
an aircraft.
These impressions we don't need to ask Giger or Scott about. We can even
be inventive about what we see and write stories and draw pictures about
such an environment and any other association that we might have with it,
and discuss it with out trying to claim that we really know what it's all
about and trying to stake a claim that we know more about it that any one else.
Then there's the original pieces of information popping out of Giger and
Scott about what there intentions were when they brought together ideas
about the formation of the scenes, and how it was finally brought together,
and how it altered from their ideas and how they adapted their ideas to
deal with the final outcome of the structure. And all this is relevant.
In centuries to come, all copies of the Alien film may be decomposed,
erased or totally worn away, and people might decide that here is a film
about a monster that comes from a batch of eggs in a derelict ship and it
kills everyone but Ripley and an android but the android was destroyed by
the other members of the crew.
They might note that the Alien looked like a combination of machinary and
organic structures, and then they might remember that the alien in the
derelict looked as if it were formed that way too. They might not realise
though why Dallas was taken away without loss of blood while all the other
members of it's victims were. They might not know if when the robot rammed
a rolled up magazine into Ripley's mouth whether it was trying to discharge
sexual frustrations or not. They might wonder how the Company originally
came to know about the derelict, and then they might want to know if the
silo was beneath the ship or in the lower portions of the ship, and whether
this ship actually ever left the planet. They might want to know if the
alien in it's final form in the film was a techno-organic phallic monster,
and perhaps the dead space jockey in its uterine chamber within the
derelict was attached to a very big phallus(i.e the telescope/cannon). They
might not see anything going beyond this.
There would be no Ridley Scott to tell them the truth about what was going
on in the production teams heads at the studios when they put it all
together, and the way they were trying to rationalise the whole film.
Some may understand the immediately absurdity of a biomechanical creature
though, and be very confused by the idea and and begin to ask questions.
I guess today some of those questions are long gone into the past and
become fuel for Star Trek, which I've noticed is taking a look at some of
the ideas and using them in other ways in their Borg related stories.
There would be a lot of things that would just dissappear and turn into
meaningless blurs.
>
>>I'm happy that Steve Martin in a film had a line where he mentioned
>>something to the effect that everything you've ever asked about life has
>>been answered in a film.
>
>Ever hear the word "facetious?"
>
I think that this is a quote from Steve Martin's character is perhaps a
quote that film analysers would probaly treasure.
>
>Tarla
>
>
>
TarlaStar
wmvrr...@aol.com (Wmvrrvrrmm) wrote:
>>E-mail is electronic mail that goes directly into your internet
>>mailbox. What we do here....is called posting, not e-mail. The two are
>>NOT the same.
>These postings are electronic, as e-mail is, and they come in the form of
>mail that e-mail is
I understand that you're on AOL, but that doesn't mean you can't learn
about the net. E-mail is private, postings are public. There's a huge
difference. Do you think that bulletin boards and private letters are
the same thing just because they are both written forms?
>RE: Giger making better creations for Alien 2
<snip a bunch of whining for Giger>
>And this is how we took it, both refer to singular and plural!
>You is used in singular and plural in England, I'm not too sure about in
>America
English grammar works the same way in every country that it's taught.
>>>Scott's ideas pertaining to the original Alien film, even now, hold firm
>>>to the level of questioning and definition that he used for the original
>>film.
>>
>>What? Say this again in English, please.
>Scott's ideas involving the original Alien film, even now, hold firm to
>the way he questioned and defined ideas in the original film
I meant, say it so that an English speaker could understand it.
>RE: Skepticism
>>
>>Be skeptical all you please, there have been practical experiments
>>which prove that the pyramids were engineered and created by ordinary
>>humans in ordinary ways.
>There are a lot of examples of how these pyramids were built. if we have a
>program showing how pyramids are built on TV, we have more than one idea
>given and a number of them are good methods, possible and then impossible.
>Looking at the engineering and the way that the block are so skillfully
>placed as one can see from the tombs, I'm not sure if we'll ever find that
>kind of technology again.
Why should we want to? We have far more advanced technology now.
>I'm hoping to find a good old fashioned ordinary way in the future, or at
>least any way that will make the building of such a cyclopean structure
>manageable. I have heard that there is one pyramid built over another over
>another and it was continuously buitl upon.It's hard to claim what it was
>originally for, while there are orthodox ideas about how it occurred and
>good healthy arguements declaring it to be impossible by an engineering
>view point, and then we can only make good healthy ideas open to argument
>and development until something with more substance comes along which will
>hold better, which may never come.
That was one HELL of a run-on sentence, congratulations. Now, if only
you could learn to COMMUNICATE.
>>
>Re:Lost Knowledge
>>No it hasn't. Christ, we've known how to mummify for thousands of
>>years. This isn't LOST knowlege. Go read "Crime and Punishment." We
>>also know how to date the tombs and pretty much the entire history of
>>the Pharohs. I don't know what idiot you were talking to, but these
>>aren't mysteries to anthropologists/Egyptologists.
>>
>Anthropologists/Egyptologists will work with orthodox theories and then
>one will come along and find out that the sphinx had been weathered down by
>water erosion, and this seem to make sense when it was compared to other
>forms of erosion , and it dated the Sphinx by this method to a much
>earlier time than was possibly imagined. There seemed to be a basis behind
>it and it showed that the human head was carved at a much later date but
>did not seem to show the head of the man that it was presumed to show.
And this would have what to do with mummification? You DO like to
change horses in the middle of the stream, don't you? Figure out what
you'd like to discuss and try sticking with it for just a few
exchanges.
<snip more irrelevance>
>And all this information that I know may as well be absolute lies as far
>as I'm concerned. I don't appear to be too bothered to look beyond the veil
>because I would
Would....what? Now you're stopping mid-sentence and I'll bet you end
up blaming ME for your errors.
>who is more right than any one else other than the people who used the
>methods to build and embalm right from the beginning.
once again....WHAT IN THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? Could you read
some of these sentences out loud to yourself before you post them?
You're babbling incoherantly and I haven't the time to try to figure
them out. Just say what you mean and quit trying to impress us all
with your intellect. It ain't working.
>Looking at the dating of the Pharoah's history.I know that there was some
>man in the last couple of years who wanted to show how the dates were
>incorrect, and that there was truth in biblical references that were
>overlooked and he found various pieces of references within tombs and
>exterior hieroglyphs and other old ruins to back up his evidence.The person
>was boring but he was good as far as I could see, and I can't claim to be
>much of a judge though. We may as well look at the possibility of his
>findings as relevant even though the other exprets were unwilling to give
>his data any acknowledgement. For me, this has thrown a veil over the whole
>dating system, and so there is the possblity that there might be an end the
>situation within the next several years.
I heard about this guy...who did this thing...but I'm not sure....
>I've heard of "crime and punishment", can you tell me if there is only one
>book with such a title
I'm not the library of Congress. I don't know all the titles of all
the books, but if you ask your librarian for "Crime and Punishment" by
that *russian guy....I bet she'd be able to figure out who you mean.
>>>>Which would be...what? Or am I just supposed to guess at your
>>>>emotional reactions? Ovid's "Metamorphosis?"
>>>>
>>
>>>Make me find ways to look into the origins of the ideas in the collective
>>>unconsciouness, and find patterns within and then see if there is a way to
>>>reuse what it there and intergrate it in one's own drawing studies. There
>>>begins a template for the language of ideas.
>>
>>There is no collective unconscious. If you want to understand
>>language, I suggest you read Chomsky and leave Giger out of it. If you
>>just want to draw and get into the movies, you really don't have to do
>>this much research, you just have to have some talent and a
>>connection. You aren't going to get either by studying Giger.
>>
>I may as well study Giger and any other artist that I make connections
>between and get some value out of heading in my research
Research into something that doesn't exist? Good luck fella, you'll
need it.
>I think that Giger fantasises about genetic memory, and things locked away
>in the genes such as inherited memoriesthat are handed down.
Fantasy....exactly. I thought you were interested in a life's
philosophy, not a dream world. If you want a dream world, I'd choose
Ul de Rico before Giger. There's no such thing as genetic memory or
inherited memory.
>I'm an avid fan of the collective unconsciousness though. something that
>one can link into and then one comes up with a weird idea and then someone
>else one bumps into has exactly the same idea, but it came through in a
>different way, which leads to all sorts of problems about where the idea
>came from.
How can you be a fan of something that doesn't exist? Are you a fan of
Santa Claus, too?
>RE;Other people voicing there own opinions on art work
>>Do you have a relationship with the Pieta? Do you know what the
>>sculpture is of? Does one have to have something particular in their
>>background to appreciate the human emotions which are displayed? I
>>DON'T THINK SO. If on the other hand, you're saying that one has to be
>>a sculptor equal to Michaelangelo in order to make comment on the
>>Pieta, then the world would have been silent about it, up to and
>>including this day.
>To translate what I said into perhaps a more normal statement, just
>something in their background , that they have experienced in life that
>they connect or relate with the sculpture.
Like a basic human emotion? Like what I've been talking about for the
last three exchanges?
>>>I only find that people might try to state something about their own
>>>emotions or talk about artists that they know about that they think might
>>>interest me, in view of my own work, and sometimes this is useful or
>>>useless. And what they might state might be an opinion that lasts for about
>>>five seconds.
>>
>>Anyone who listens to the opinions of those they don't respect is a
>>fool.
>>
>I guess what I mean is that the opinions given by the person might be a
>statement that they probably will change shortly afterwards. I listen to a
>lot of opinions because there aren't many people with opinions that I know
>of, so I as a beggar for opinions can not be a chooser of opinions.
Of course you can. Just because you're hungry doesn't mean you have to
eat shit.
>We can look on his visual influence on Scott as a visual philosophy, a way
>to look at life.His ideas are so powerful that Fellini a fan of his refused
>to work with him because Moebius' ideas would simply take over the whole.
>It seems to be a wordless philosophy and expands the mental horizons to a
>certain degree.
Yeah, right. Soon it will sweep the planet and NONE WILL BE ABLE TO
RESIST! (pardon the sarcasm but it's getting a little thick around
here)
>And then he has worked with Alexandro Jodorowsky on comic illustration pieces
>which have a philosophical content. But what comes out seems to be perhaps
>a brand of 'new age' mysticism, with Jodorowsky being into Yogi-Guruism and
>both of them being thoughtful about concepts from this Don Juan person.
Oh no...you're NOT going to bring up Casteneda are you? Please tell me
you didn't fall for THAT shit. You DO know that Casteneda was stripped
of his degree because HE LIED. He made up all that Don Juan shit.
There was NO evidence to support his nonsense. It's all fantasy.
>What bubble up isn't everyone's idea of philosophy.
What?
>Giger's pictures often are feelings and such that seem to reflect ideas
>about the primeordial parts of our being, and interaction with machinary,
Hmmm lessee...primordial...mechanical...ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT
LIKE THE OTHER. ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT THE SAME. Can you say,
CONFLICT?
>perhaps in the latter being inspired by the philosophy of Marshall McLuhan,
>and the late Timothy Leary was a good friend and inspiration. People can
>appreciate the latters' names because of their philisophical ideas. Giger
>does like to surround himself with a lot of inventive thinkers and people
>who study life in very strange ways who find that they can find ideas
>within his work..
Giger got his thoughts from McLuhan and Leary....not the other way
around.
>>Yeah? and how many teachers in your art college actually made their
>>living at ART instead of teaching? They can't teach what they can't
>>do. Besides, Art College doesn't cover the broad range of educational
>>subjects that a University would have. Focusing too much attention on
>>one area (say drawing) detracts from one's ablity to gather general
>>knowlege. I bet they didn't talk much about running an art business
>>either. You can't teach what you don't know.
>Most of them worked outside the college. There were some very very good
>illustrators, graphic designers and painters amongst other things, and
>there were a number who were quite rich because of their success. There was
>one teacher who worked for Saatchi and Saatchi. There was a teacher who had
>designed the packet of a packet of sweets that were very popular, and we
>had taken the design for granted every time we unwrapped the sweets. It was
>strange the revelations that a lot of them would pop up with. One of them
>worked on an expensive calendar every year and through his good work a
>personal friend of Patrick Lichfield the photographer. There were a lot of
>them with good connections and backgrounds.
Uh huh. Sweets designers eh? Well I guess they don't have much cause
to use Classical symbolism, do they? And I guess they weren't training
you to be an artist, they were training you to be a whore. I hope they
failed.
>It seemed that they were gladly giving up time to teach people which they
>didn't need to do, but it gave them satisfaction
To finally NOT be selling out any talent they might have had to the
highest bidder? Yeah, I BET they were satisfied. It must be nice for a
hooker to retire as well.
>Some people don't bother to think about the business side of it, and can
>just go through their own uncommercial pathway through art, and just earn
>the money through teaching skills to other people, and there were some
>people brilliant at this.
>I'm not worried about art not being commercial enough.
Neither am I. I think you're missing my point.
>RE:Copyright laws? On stories that are over 3000 years old? Get a grip.
>I meant that Batman isn't so usable because of copywrite laws. I guess the
>idea of the man with the semi-appearance of a bat can be easily changed though.
Chupacapbra the MAN!
>RE:Where you are
>>I'm in America, Oklahoma U.S.A. and right now, I'm working on the
>>plans for a full-sized statue of Psyche raising the lantern. I work
>>with the great sculptor, Paul Moore.
>Wow! That's cheered me up!
Cheered YOU up...man, you should see MY nips!
> It would be a lot stranger to find a painting almost depicting a state of
>horror in some doctor's waiting room that cost the equivalent of over a
>thousand dollars.I think it's an amusing notion and so it will haunt my mind
Actually the thought of a Giger painting in my doctor's office cheers
me up as well, but I don't think Giger's theraputic in any way.
>It seemed that something like the idea was brought forward into
>Independance day where the biomechanoids in that film had tentacles coming
>out of the back.
>Another thing was that in Giger's paintings, he might paint humanoids
>hiding within the space within a long biomechnoid head, as if it were a
>cocoon, and so there wer have the head of a biomechanoid in Independance
>day erupting with a small humanoid within. The artist who worked on
>independance day's monsters did drawings that were simply inspired by
>Giger's art form. One could see that the artist was keen on Giger's way of
>creating these things.
So artists steal from each other, what's that got to do with ANYTHING?
It's certainly not the basis of a life's philosophy.
>When we look at the final image of the alien, although it's mouth was
>altered somewhat by Carlo Rambaldi who sculpted the final head, which Giger
>wasn't too happy about, and perhaps the over all suit wasn't what was
>planned for we have something that's more or less a captured idea.
a captured idea of what? A scary thing? A lion substitute? Some
collectively unconscious memory of a monster that we've known? Sorry,
but that's utter and complete bullshit.
>We can go back to the original vaults of information magazines and films
>to see what the ideas were from the people directly involved in the making
>of Alien, and then we can see what sort of effect it has on the general
>population and note all of their reactions and build an alternative picture
>simply from that, and keep them as too seperate fields.
>Without knowing too much about the film, people might look at the scene
>of the derelict interior without too much of a connection, or they might
>see it as being like the inside of a womb which they might have a
>subconscious memory of, or a whale from seeing a book or cartoon about
>Pinocchio, or even perhaps the inside of a giant version of the interior of
>an aircraft.
The latter two I can accept, the first one is not acceptable. We don't
have unconscious memories of the womb. Just because some idiot babbles
about "the collective unconscious" doesn't mean that any such thing
exists. There is no evidence to support such a position.
>In centuries to come, all copies of the Alien film may be decomposed,
>erased or totally worn away, and people might decide that here is a film
>about a monster that comes from a batch of eggs in a derelict ship and it
>kills everyone but Ripley and an android but the android was destroyed by
>the other members of the crew.
And that's exactly what it's about....nothing more, except that Ripley
is female and in our culture and times, HER success is the real story.
>They might note that the Alien looked like a combination of machinary and
>organic structures, and then they might remember that the alien in the
>derelict looked as if it were formed that way too. They might not realise
>though why Dallas was taken away without loss of blood while all the other
>members of it's victims were. They might not know if when the robot rammed
>a rolled up magazine into Ripley's mouth whether it was trying to discharge
>sexual frustrations or not.
Do you think that we'll evolve away from dicks in the next few hundred
years? I don't. Most people even archaic peoples know/knew the
difference between assault and sex.
>They might wonder how the Company originally
>came to know about the derelict, and then they might want to know if the
>silo was beneath the ship or in the lower portions of the ship, and whether
>this ship actually ever left the planet. They might want to know if the
>alien in it's final form in the film was a techno-organic phallic monster,
>and perhaps the dead space jockey in its uterine chamber within the
>derelict was attached to a very big phallus(i.e the telescope/cannon). They
>might not see anything going beyond this.
They might conclude that Giger isn't getting enough pussy or dick or
whatever it is that he likes.
>There would be no Ridley Scott to tell them the truth about what was going
>on in the production teams heads at the studios when they put it all
>together, and the way they were trying to rationalise the whole film.
>Some may understand the immediately absurdity of a biomechanical creature
>though, and be very confused by the idea and and begin to ask questions.
Hey fella, there's been no Ridley Scott to tell ME and millions of
other people how to view this film and we've done just FINE. You sound
as though this movie contains the answers to all of life's questions
in two hours...if ONLY we search hard enough. Well...it doesn't. It's
just a monster movie where a woman kicks ass.
>I guess today some of those questions are long gone into the past and
>become fuel for Star Trek, which I've noticed is taking a look at some of
>the ideas and using them in other ways in their Borg related stories.
Star Trek is a thirty year long series whose direction was controlled,
for the most part, by a single person. There's a big difference
between that and a one-shot movie where Giger is just the artistic
designer.
Tarla
*Dostoyevsky (sp?)
William Miller
> Cheered YOU up...man, you should see MY nips!
>
A Jpeg is worth a thousand words....
William Miller
> Why should we want to? We have far more advanced technology now.
Macchu Pichu, and many other Incan ruins, also tesify to the
obsessive-compulsiveness that wall-making can entail. Its worth laying
eyes directly upon, I'll tell you - mind boggling. But also a testament
to the power of unlimited slave labor (probably companion animals running
around, too) and totalitarian control, not the spiritual fantasies
projected upon it.
> >>There is no collective unconscious. If you want to understand
> >>language, I suggest you read Chomsky and leave Giger out of it.
Chomsky was enormously influential, and delivered the Coup de Grace to
Skinner's dominance of psychology, though on close inspection clearly
takes an anti-evolutinary stance, which cooks the goose of his
credibility, in my book. Well, okay, my pamphlet.
(Better book: "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett, for a
interesting critique of Chomsky.)
>
> How can you be a fan of something that doesn't exist? Are you a fan of
> Santa Claus, too?
You're not saying that.... that... that... OH NO!!!!
>
> Oh no...you're NOT going to bring up Casteneda are you? Please tell me
> you didn't fall for THAT shit. You DO know that Casteneda was stripped
> of his degree because HE LIED. He made up all that Don Juan shit.
> There was NO evidence to support his nonsense. It's all fantasy.
Carl Sagan pens a wonderful chapter in "A Demon Haunted World" in which he
describes Randi's easy conterfeit of a channeler in Austrailia (by
coaching an ordinary guy - not an actor - providing him with good
material, and getting him on TV.) Even after confessing the hoax, many
followers clung to their belief of the authenticity of the ancient
character he had "channeled," and the wisdom delivered. They couldn't
convince them otherwise. Amazing.
> >What bubble up isn't everyone's idea of philosophy.
> What?
See? "What?" bubbled up. He got you there.
> Actually the thought of a Giger painting in my doctor's office cheers
> me up as well, but I don't think Giger's theraputic in any way.
A little eroticized biomechanical death imagery before surgery cheers me
up *every time*.
>
> a captured idea of what? A scary thing? A lion substitute? Some
> collectively unconscious memory of a monster that we've known? Sorry,
> but that's utter and complete bullshit.
But Giger does very effectively evoke something of the irrational
unconscious, IMHO, something of psychotic states - and our own
relationship to our own biology, something that is ordinarily quite
"alien" to us, and obscured, from the point of view of our culture's
sanitized consensual reality. Hence the mix of erotic death imagery, both
qualities that are ordinarily heavily repressed/defended.
Leary was mixed in the last few posts, too, which calls to mind
hallucinogens and the experiences thereof. Giger is reminiscent of those
experiences - particularly his use of repeating motifs and spurious levels
of detail, which are characteristic of visual hallucinations. So I'm
told. (Not that I, no, not me. Never. How could you think that?)
> Just because some idiot babbles
> about "the collective unconscious" doesn't mean that any such thing
> exists. There is no evidence to support such a position.
Its a compelling idea, IMHO (as are many mistaken notions), though one to
which I do not subscribe because of its violation of evolutionary theory.
Wmvrrvrrmm
>I understand that you're on AOL, but that doesn't mean you can't learn
>about the net. E-mail is private, postings are public. There's a huge
>difference. Do you think that bulletin boards and private letters are
>the same thing just because they are both written forms?
I have nothing private to say so it all means the same thing to me. I have
only been on the internet for a few months and no one has pointed it out,
they all seem to be lost in the same sort of ignorance, which is fine with
me. I write a piece of mail on the computer and then send it off and soon
it comes back to me with all the other mail to the Newsgroup in my flash
sessions, and this is activated by going to flash session that is under
Email in my AOL computer, and I don't really have to think too much about it.
It might be good for me to know further intricate details, perhaps. It
depends how it all sinks in.
>>>>Scott's ideas pertaining to the original Alien film, even now, hold firm
>>>>to the level of questioning and definition that he used for the original
>>>film.
>>>
>>>What? Say this again in English, please.
>
>>Scott's ideas involving the original Alien film, even now, hold firm to
>>the way he questioned and defined ideas in the original film
>
>I meant, say it so that an English speaker could understand it.
>
Scott still now has ideas now about Alien.
He used a method for questioning and defining the ideas for alien which
one can follow back in the production of Alien, and he still uses the
method now. Scott's ideas come out in a certain way. He is a very intricate
person when he's handling the knowledge that he has in his brain, and
sifting through other people's work for ideas.
I can look at the way he puts his ideas together through his interviews,
but I can't summarize that whole thing in a few words or sentences. It
seems like a difficult dream to remember, and then there isn't a question
here to answer that would pull some of the information together as there
would normally be in terms of giving answers and so one may only drift
around that abstract looking statement in a rubber dinghy.
>>RE: Skepticism
>>>
>>>Be skeptical all you please, there have been practical experiments
>>>which prove that the pyramids were engineered and created by ordinary
>>>humans in ordinary ways.
>
>>There are a lot of examples of how these pyramids were built. if we have a
>>program showing how pyramids are built on TV, we have more than one idea
>>given and a number of them are good methods, possible and then impossible.
>
>>Looking at the engineering and the way that the block are so skillfully
>>placed as one can see from the tombs, I'm not sure if we'll ever find that
>>kind of technology again.
>
>Why should we want to? We have far more advanced technology now.
Perhaps this old technology might be far more cost affective.
Lenny Da Vinci designed a piece of apparatus for builders back in his life
and they still use it today virtually unchanged.
>
RE: One hell of a run-on sentence
>That was one HELL of a run-on sentence, congratulations. Now, if only
>you could learn to COMMUNICATE.
Perhaps one day the flow of communication will become steadier. I don't
know how the actual learning of communication takes place, I don't know
many people who actually communicate, even if they claim they know how to.
I assume that there is a language barrier between the two of us. Perhaps
there is something more that we should be expressing.
>>>
>>Re:Lost Knowledge
>
>>>No it hasn't. Christ, we've known how to mummify for thousands of
>>>years. This isn't LOST knowlege. Go read "Crime and Punishment." We
>>>also know how to date the tombs and pretty much the entire history of
>>>the Pharohs. I don't know what idiot you were talking to, but these
>>>aren't mysteries to anthropologists/Egyptologists.
>>>
RE: Talk about the sphinx
>
>And this would have what to do with mummification? You DO like to
>change horses in the middle of the stream, don't you? Figure out what
>you'd like to discuss and try sticking with it for just a few
>exchanges.
>
This has to do with the 'history of the Pharoahs' which you mentioned. I
caught onto some little flow that came in from the phrase put there by
yourself. It's all part of the same stream. The methods that they use in
understandinf ancient Egyptian secrets has been generally faulty in many
places. And all the top people with their orthodox ideas and then the lower
down people with good threads of other possibilities that might relate to
the finding the real information behind mysteries and solve them, and
perhaps put the ghosts to rest.
And then this connects with the Alien film because there is a lot of
information buried within old magazines dealing with what's in the film
that isn't part of the essential story, but has been of some concern in
regard to the continuity between the Alien films so far, and not many
people have this knowledge to look at and put into the back of the mind as
some information to work with when trying to be creative about the alien.
><snip more irrelevance>
>
>>And all this information that I know may as well be absolute lies as far
>>as I'm concerned. I don't appear to be too bothered to look beyond the veil
>>because I would ask who is more right than any one else other than the
people >>who used the methods to build and embalm right from the beginning.
>
>once again....WHAT IN THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? Could you read
>some of these sentences out loud to yourself before you post them?
>You're babbling incoherantly and I haven't the time to try to figure
>them out. Just say what you mean and quit trying to impress us all
>with your intellect. It ain't working.
Well we're talking about people with their ancient building methods and
their ancient embalming methods. And I haven't got anything to go by that
proves that any of the standard theories for these things are really worth
knowing about as answers to these great questions
I don't know if 'intellect' is such a good word to use. I'll have to blame
you for dragging me through these questions leading me to express in this
pseudo intellectual way of thinking. But if I should blame you, think
nothing of it because it's not worth anyone accepting it. I am saying what
I mean, but there may be no words or expressions to carry me further to
your wavelength that I know about, and maybe someone does.
>
>>Looking at the dating of the Pharoah's history.I know that there was some
>>man in the last couple of years who wanted to show how the dates were
>>incorrect, and that there was truth in biblical references that were
>>overlooked and he found various pieces of references within tombs and
>>exterior hieroglyphs and other old ruins to back up his evidence.The person
>>was boring but he was good as far as I could see, and I can't claim to be
>>much of a judge though. We may as well look at the possibility of his
>>findings as relevant even though the other exprets were unwilling to give
>>his data any acknowledgement. For me, this has thrown a veil over the whole
>>dating system, and so there is the possblity that there might be an end the
>>situation within the next several years.
>
>I heard about this guy...who did this thing...but I'm not sure....
I've forgotten his name. Maybe he will be proven to be wrong enough for
them to ignore him completely.
>
>>I've heard of "crime and punishment", can you tell me if there is only one
>>book with such a title
>
>I'm not the library of Congress. I don't know all the titles of all
>the books, but if you ask your librarian for "Crime and Punishment" by
>that *russian guy....I bet she'd be able to figure out who you mean.
I'll look for it, it must be the one that I know about.
>
>>>>>Which would be...what? Or am I just supposed to guess at your
>>>>>emotional reactions? Ovid's "Metamorphosis?"
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>Make me find ways to look into the origins of the ideas in the collective
>>>>unconsciouness, and find patterns within and then see if there is a way to
>>>>reuse what it there and intergrate it in one's own drawing studies. There
>>>>begins a template for the language of ideas.
>>>
>>>There is no collective unconscious. If you want to understand
>>>language, I suggest you read Chomsky and leave Giger out of it. If you
>>>just want to draw and get into the movies, you really don't have to do
>>>this much research, you just have to have some talent and a
>>>connection. You aren't going to get either by studying Giger.
>>>
>>I may as well study Giger and any other artist that I make connections
>>between and get some value out of heading in my research
>
>Research into something that doesn't exist? Good luck fella, you'll
>need it.
It's fun going on a wild goose chase, looking for all these patterns that
seem to hover around and link with this dimension at various points in
space and time of little or no worth. I have found some good points that
knot the two realms together and really, it just comes out as a coincidence
in a nicely triangulated form. Little things often pop ups here and there
and somehow it's almost everywhere.
>
>>I think that Giger fantasises about genetic memory, and things locked away
>>in the genes such as inherited memories that are handed down.
>
>Fantasy....exactly. I thought you were interested in a life's
>philosophy, not a dream world. If you want a dream world, I'd choose
>Ul de Rico before Giger. There's no such thing as genetic memory or
>inherited memory.
Carl Sagan is a fan of inherited memory. He thinks that dreams about
flying go back to the days when human's ancestors were monkeys swinging
around the trees.
I can't comment.
>
>>I'm an avid fan of the collective unconsciousness though. something that
>>one can link into and then one comes up with a weird idea and then someone
>>else one bumps into has exactly the same idea, but it came through in a
>>different way, which leads to all sorts of problems about where the idea
>>came from.
>
>How can you be a fan of something that doesn't exist? Are you a fan of
>Santa Claus, too?
It might exist, it's hard to define. I'm a fan of the Santa Claus concept.
Saint Nicholas was an actual human being, but it's a strange idea of Santa
Claus that we have now.
>
>>RE;Other people voicing there own opinions on art work
>
>>>Do you have a relationship with the Pieta? Do you know what the
>>>sculpture is of? Does one have to have something particular in their
>>>background to appreciate the human emotions which are displayed? I
>>>DON'T THINK SO. If on the other hand, you're saying that one has to be
>>>a sculptor equal to Michaelangelo in order to make comment on the
>>>Pieta, then the world would have been silent about it, up to and
>>>including this day.
>
>>To translate what I said into perhaps a more normal statement, just
>>something in their background , that they have experienced in life that
>>they connect or relate with the sculpture.
>
>Like a basic human emotion? Like what I've been talking about for the
>last three exchanges?
It may not be just about basic human emotion,there might be an advanced
human emotion and the rest of us will suddenly find out it's there, but in
an ordinary world they might want to compare it to something that they seen
before or an experience they've had, or abstract ideas hovering around
their mind that links with this. But it may be just about basic human
emotions and then I'm afraid that I would have little to say on a more
basic level.
>
>>>>I only find that people might try to state something about their own
>>>>emotions or talk about artists that they know about that they think might
>>>>interest me, in view of my own work, and sometimes this is useful or
>>>>useless. And what they might state might be an opinion that lasts for
>about
>>>>five seconds.
>>>
>>>Anyone who listens to the opinions of those they don't respect is a
>>>fool.
>>>
>>I guess what I mean is that the opinions given by the person might be a
>>statement that they probably will change shortly afterwards. I listen to a
>>lot of opinions because there aren't many people with opinions that I know
>>of, so I as a beggar for opinions can not be a chooser of opinions.
>
>Of course you can. Just because you're hungry doesn't mean you have to
>eat shit.
Well, we may as well find some persons opinion, even if it's shit, we'll
use it as a beginning point to see what that person who was talking shit
was really talking about. I wouldn't call shit absolutely useless, we can
often use it in the compost heap and it will turn into something that will
help the plants grow.
>
>>We can look on his visual influence on Scott as a visual philosophy, a way
>>to look at life.His ideas are so powerful that Fellini a fan of his refused
>>to work with him because Moebius' ideas would simply take over the whole.
>>It seems to be a wordless philosophy and expands the mental horizons to a
>>certain degree.
>
>Yeah, right. Soon it will sweep the planet and NONE WILL BE ABLE TO
>RESIST! (pardon the sarcasm but it's getting a little thick around
>here)
Some people can't resist and a lot of people aren't bothered even in the
slightest.
RE: Jodo and Moebius being thoughtful about concepts from this Don Juan person.
>
>Oh no...you're NOT going to bring up Casteneda are you? Please tell me
>you didn't fall for THAT shit. You DO know that Casteneda was stripped
>of his degree because HE LIED. He made up all that Don Juan shit.
>There was NO evidence to support his nonsense. It's all fantasy.
I don't mind what Carlos envisioned or whether Don Juan was real or not.
I've not even read a single book of his yet, but I appreciate the
reflections that some people have on such matter, since I appreciate who
they are and a lot of the things that they want to talk about. I don't mind
if everything Carlos wrote about was inspired by eating mouthfulls of shit.
I don't mind fantasists.
But the way that he seems to have crapped on other people with his
writings, it has agreed with some of their digestive systems and they have
been able to make something out of it.
I'm more interested in Rudolph Raspe was eating when he half transcribed
some of the tales as told by Hieronymous Karl Friedrich, Freiherr Von
Munchhausen Von Bodenwerder back in the eighteenth century.
>
>>What bubble up isn't everyone's idea of philosophy.
>
>What?
>
>>Giger's pictures often are feelings and such that seem to reflect ideas
>>about the primeordial parts of our being, and interaction with machinary,
>
>Hmmm lessee...primordial...mechanical...ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT
>LIKE THE OTHER. ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT THE SAME. Can you say,
>CONFLICT?
I've found no conflict in his paintings yet. I have found that other
people can have a conflict, but I would have to talk them through the books
of his paintings to see the other side and then they can see a different
perspective.
>
>Giger got his thoughts from McLuhan and Leary....not the other way
>around.
and then Leary could get thoughts from Giger's work. I can get ideas from
Giger's work, but I don't appear to be anyone worth noting .
>
>>>Yeah? and how many teachers in your art college actually made their
>>>living at ART instead of teaching? They can't teach what they can't
>>>do. Besides, Art College doesn't cover the broad range of educational
>>>subjects that a University would have. Focusing too much attention on
>>>one area (say drawing) detracts from one's ablity to gather general
>>>knowlege. I bet they didn't talk much about running an art business
>>>either. You can't teach what you don't know.
>
>>Most of them worked outside the college. There were some very very good
>>illustrators, graphic designers and painters amongst other things, and
>>there were a number who were quite rich because of their success. There was
>>one teacher who worked for Saatchi and Saatchi. There was a teacher who had
>>designed the packet of a packet of sweets that were very popular, and we
>>had taken the design for granted every time we unwrapped the sweets. It was
>>strange the revelations that a lot of them would pop up with. One of them
>>worked on an expensive calendar every year and through his good work a
>>personal friend of Patrick Lichfield the photographer. There were a lot of
>>them with good connections and backgrounds.
>
>Uh huh. Sweets designers eh? Well I guess they don't have much cause
>to use Classical symbolism, do they? And I guess they weren't training
>you to be an artist, they were training you to be a whore. I hope they
>failed.
None of them were strictly classical symbolists because there isn't much
interest in that these days as I've mentioned.Most of the tutors had a good
all round knowledge of various things. The sweet wrapper designer was a
good commercial illustrator, the sweet packet was a very elegent one and
the illustrator brought in pictures created by his friends who were
illustrators, which I had seen through various magazines and he gave me
good advice and encouragement about some of my own compositions in terms
of developing ideas.
None of this stopped me from devoting good time for drawing seraphim and
cherubim and goddesses etcetera. A lot of people were going in a lot of
different ways as students in the various different classes.
I think that my only desire at the time was to experiment with surrealism
and mixing mythological motifs with modern day things, and also to ween
myself off drawing images of biomechanoids, which I did for a while before
becoming addicted again and I managed to get rid of it almost completely.
>
>>It seemed that they were gladly giving up time to teach people which they
>>didn't need to do, but it gave them satisfaction
>
>To finally NOT be selling out any talent they might have had to the
>highest bidder? Yeah, I BET they were satisfied. It must be nice for a
>hooker to retire as well.
>
>
>>Some people don't bother to think about the business side of it, and can
>>just go through their own uncommercial pathway through art, and just earn
>>the money through teaching skills to other people, and there were some
>>people brilliant at this.
>>I'm not worried about art not being commercial enough.
>
>Neither am I. I think you're missing my point.
I don't think it matters if one is going to make money out of it or not.
It doesn't matter what one knows about the art world and how to make money
out of it. Using art as a source of income can ruin one's desire to express
through art or it can make it can make the creativity stronger. Some people
want to keep everything that they create as it's like a diary of one's
life, what one draws or paints.
Then to have something published in a magazine or put somewhere where
people will see it permanently is another way to have that piece forever.
I would find it hard to get rid of my artwork like that. I prefer to do it
on computer these days so that there's no real original and it can be
copied many times and posted to anyone on the internet.
I am interested in only the development of ideas and their final impact on
people and the difference between what was originally concieved and what
people have seen it as afterwards in absence of the artist's own idea of
what it was. And then I love building up patterns out of the ways that
ideas are concieved and developed, and then I may find a pattern to link
onto that might actually be like a map for developing an idea in a similar
way, linking into something mysterious that I really have no firm idea
about but I can make the ground firmer by this method.
>
RE:Creation of a statue of Psyche>
>>Wow! That's cheered me up!
>
>Cheered YOU up...man, you should see MY nips!
Can you send a JPEG when it's finished?
I am actually happy that there is mythology being explored in modern day
culture by yourself through sculpture. It gives me hope that others will
follow the same route.
>
RE:Giger as therapeutic
>Actually the thought of a Giger painting in my doctor's office cheers
>me up as well, but I don't think Giger's theraputic in any way.
It can be distressing for some until they see the positive elements in his
work that show a kind of a light or should I say a kind light. His humans
and other organisms in his dark world seem to be having fun if only we
could realise it. They are in an environment that is perfect for them.
RE: Ideas from alien jumping through other people's creativity while being
developed on the way
>
>So artists steal from each other, what's that got to do with ANYTHING?
>It's certainly not the basis of a life's philosophy.
They were building upon ideas that had not been expressed but were dying
to get to the surface in the opinion's of some, and once they had got
there, they disintergrated into nothingness, but there were people like me
to recall them for some worthless reason.
Artists often steel ideas because they might mean something to the artist
at the time and they wish explore creativity through that direction.
>
REL:A captured idea of an alien.
>a captured idea of what? A scary thing? A lion substitute? Some
>collectively unconscious memory of a monster that we've known? Sorry,
>but that's utter and complete bullshit.
Perhaps something as relevant as people's ideas about real life
extra-terrestrials, mysterious secrets. Some thing that's very complex with
a hideous sense of design to it. Something that also links back into the
past evolution of mankind. Something as relevant as a long of mythical
monsters from the past Classical mythologies.
The monster would perhaps be as hideous as some of the feelings about
traps and tombs and animal headed deities, strangled corpses. O'Bannon has
a fascination for pyramidology ideas (probably by Pyramidiots) and Giger
loved ideas about Ancient Egypt, and some of this expressed itself in the
earlier parts of the production of Dune but were phased out and replaced by
other concepts.
>
>>We can go back to the original vaults of information magazines and films
>>to see what the ideas were from the people directly involved in the making
>>of Alien, and then we can see what sort of effect it has on the general
>>population and note all of their reactions and build an alternative picture
>>simply from that, and keep them as too seperate fields.
>
RE: Inside of Monstro the whale and an aircraft.
>
>The latter two I can accept, the first one is not acceptable. We don't
>have unconscious memories of the womb. Just because some idiot babbles
>about "the collective unconscious" doesn't mean that any such thing
>exists. There is no evidence to support such a position.
>
There may be no memories about the womb in the unconscious mind, although
Giacamo Casanova thought that he had a few.
I think it was the ancient philosopher Plato who was having all these
funny ideas about the Collective Unconscious, predefined shapes and forms
floating around in the astral realm and the ideas about seeing the true
forms through what are simply shadows of it.
>
>>In centuries to come, all copies of the Alien film may be decomposed,
>>erased or totally worn away, and people might decide that here is a film
>>about a monster that comes from a batch of eggs in a derelict ship and it
>>kills everyone but Ripley and an android but the android was destroyed by
>>the other members of the crew.
>
>And that's exactly what it's about....nothing more, except that Ripley
>is female and in our culture and times, HER success is the real story.
>
And then they were going to cast Ripley as a man, but they decided upon a
woman, and Scott thought that this was a very good move.
>>They might note that the Alien looked like a combination of machinary and
>>organic structures, and then they might remember that the alien in the
>>derelict looked as if it were formed that way too. They might not realise
>>though why Dallas was taken away without loss of blood while all the other
>>members of it's victims were. They might not know if when the robot rammed
>>a rolled up magazine into Ripley's mouth whether it was trying to discharge
>>sexual frustrations or not.
>
>Do you think that we'll evolve away from dicks in the next few hundred
>years? I don't. Most people even archaic peoples know/knew the
>difference between assault and sex.
Well, it seemed that this machine called Ash did have the programming of a
heterosexual male, and he found trouble in expressing his sexual desires,
and this is only what Scott says.
And well, they might have different views about sex in years to come. It
seems that sperm count is decreasing on a global scale.It seems that with
pollution the hormone levels of humans will be generally upset.
I don't know if it's likely that men are going to produce more female
hormones in years to come and women will produce more male hormones, or
both will simply produce less and less hormones of both kinds than we
normally have in our body's anyway. Are we likely to turn into a sexless
androgenous culture. or will we find a greater harmony with sexuality.
They were into all parts of the body during the times of ancient Egypt and
in the pharoahs funeral rights just as his soul is being set off to Orion,
I believe that a female gives the pharoahs corpse oral sex.
>
>>They might wonder how the Company originally
>>came to know about the derelict, and then they might want to know if the
>>silo was beneath the ship or in the lower portions of the ship, and whether
>>this ship actually ever left the planet. They might want to know if the
>>alien in it's final form in the film was a techno-organic phallic monster,
>>and perhaps the dead space jockey in its uterine chamber within the
>>derelict was attached to a very big phallus(i.e the telescope/cannon). They
>>might not see anything going beyond this.
>
>They might conclude that Giger isn't getting enough pussy or dick or
>whatever it is that he likes.
Indeed this has led to accusations that Giger has sexual problems and well
his girlfriend told the accusers that they were wrong. It seems that Ridley
Scott may be accused of being sexist with his need to have Ripley take most
of her clothes off towars the end of Alien, and well having the alien as
some perverted voyeur watching her.
He has been accused of similar sexism with Bladerunner. Rerhaps Ridley
isn't getting enough.
>
>Hey fella, there's been no Ridley Scott to tell ME and millions of
>other people how to view this film and we've done just FINE. You sound
>as though this movie contains the answers to all of life's questions
>in two hours...if ONLY we search hard enough. Well...it doesn't. It's
>just a monster movie where a woman kicks ass.
It contains a lot of distant things that are not directly
understandable.There is an old ghost wailing to be understood.
The film contains a lot of people's work and they've stretched their minds
down a long narrow corridor into a world that hasn't been easily navigated
through. Where it goes to is of little interest to many people who may as
well look at the surface story which seems to be just a monster movie, and
if you want to have a look at all the details in the background of the film
then it would be best to read all the articles from the magazines, and then
this is all unimportant for the basic enjoyment of the film.
For my basic level of enjoyment with the film, I had to read everything in
the interviews to look at the way the ideas were came upon and developed
and brought through the journey to the screen, and the world of thoughts
that were going on in the studios while all this happened. It seems to be
an unreal landscape and a good place to dream about.
It was a good exercise in trying to come define a mental landscape that
was alien, and so the resulting feelings from it seem to break their way
through to other levels of the mind.
>>I guess today some of those questions are long gone into the past and
>>become fuel for Star Trek, which I've noticed is taking a look at some of
>>the ideas and using them in other ways in their Borg related stories.
>
>Star Trek is a thirty year long series whose direction was controlled,
>for the most part, by a single person. There's a big difference
>between that and a one-shot movie where Giger is just the artistic
>designer.
>
In Alien, Giger was the chief inspiration, his book of paintings was
Ridley Scott's bible for the production, and the original idea for the
movie by Dan O'Bannon was inspired by having seen Giger's work I believe
during the pre-production of Jodorowski's attempt at Dune
The flavour of Star Trek's ideas are generally different but there's a
familiar ingredient when they decide to rip Giger off, in an attempt to
define a race of biomechanoids,
The ideas being dealt with in Star Trek in relation to the Borg are of
interest to me.
They have borrowed from Giger's biomechanics for the Borg and also the
Borgs enemy from a parallel universe.
And when they tried to get Giger, he said "no" because they wanted the
idea of his painting of Li Tobler his deceased lover to be the Borg Queen,
and he wanted his painting of Li to remain seperate and still they used
that idea in the final film.
If there are more word gaps in this letter, I am sorry.