Aliens: things they didn't ought to have done

In article <d0oxgpgd5vio.82hisoqwo9xd$.dlg@40tude.net>,
Adam Cameron <adam_junk DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

> Why don't you just ignore him when he's being like this?

I should do that. But I just enjoy poking fun at him.

--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: Aliens: things they didn't ought to have done 

Adam Cameron asked *Covenant*:

> > Why don't you just ignore him when he's being like this?

Sandman replied:

> I should do that. But I just enjoy poking fun at him.

You can't even follow the flow of a thread?

Or are you *so* self-centered that you believe that *everything*
must pertain to you?

ADWatts
 >> Stay informed about: Aliens: things they didn't ought to have done 

Covenant replied:

> Oh he won't... He *really* needs the last word. Constantly.

I know, I know . . . <shakes head>

But so far I have been amused. He wasn't even smart enough
to get the joke about always needing the word! ;-)

> So...
> What's this about these big acid bleeding creatures then??

Not sure . . . but there was something attached to my face
last night . . . should I be worried about that?

Have a great day!

ADWatts

"As long as you have some idea what's happening to you 'real'
and 'unreal' doesn't matter. You have to stand up for what you
care about; if you don't you lose control of who you are."
Stephen R. Donaldson -- "The Wounded Land"
 >> Stay informed about: Aliens: things they didn't ought to have done 

In article <2jYvd.574899$D%.100589@attbi_s51>,
"ADWatts" <adwatts RemoveThis @graphic-designer.com> wrote:

> Adam Cameron asked *Covenant*:
>
> > > Why don't you just ignore him when he's being like this?
>
> Sandman replied:
>
> > I should do that. But I just enjoy poking fun at him.
>
> You can't even follow the flow of a thread?
>
> Or are you *so* self-centered that you believe that *everything*
> must pertain to you?

Oh please. I was making a reversed interpretation on purpose due to the fact
that Adam doesn't know how to quote posts properly.

--
Sandman[.net]
 >> Stay informed about: Aliens: things they didn't ought to have done 

> due to the fact
> that Adam doesn't know how to quote posts properly.

But I wasn't quoting anything. I wasn't commenting on anything in
particular said in the post I was following up to. So what would I
"quote"? Every instance of you being an obnoxious fool? I think everyone
reading might already have gathered that.

You *don't* know how threaded conversations work, do you?


--

Adam
 >> Stay informed about: Aliens: things they didn't ought to have done 

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:05:18 +1300, Adam Cameron
<adam_junk.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> I never quite understood why there was a flamethrower at *all* !!
>
>James Cameron was copying Alien in lieu of any original ideas of his own?

Apparently, the whole "Ripley and Soldiers" idea came from David Giler
and Walter Hill. James Cameron merely wrote a script treatment based
on that general premise. hence the marines, guns, and hordes of
aliens. The invention of the queen was then borne out of necessity, I
believe, to explain how you could get a roughly 1:1 ratio of aliens to
hosts.

Besides, It made more sense than the rather inefficient
two-hosts-per-alien method of reproduction that Dan O'Bannon cooked up
for the original film. IMO, Jimmy improved the aliens by adding the
queen to the mix. If you're going to grind an axe with anyone, try
Giler and Hill. They've been steering the ship since day one.

Flamethrowers make sense for a combat unit accustomed to fighting
aliens lifeforms. It may be that they've literally had to fight
swarms of creepy-crawly bugs in the past, which their pulse rifles
would do little good against. Their incinerators, on the other hand,
would allow them to cover entire armies of alien cockroaches with
swaths of fiery death.

Keith
 >> Stay informed about: Aliens: things they didn't ought to have done 

"Keith Hazelwood" <unknown.TakeThisOut@unknown.net> wrote

> The invention of the queen was then borne out of necessity, I
> believe, to explain how you could get a roughly 1:1 ratio of aliens to
> hosts.

Something not made explicit in A1 was why the creature sometimes kills and
sometimes abducts, and what it does with those it abducts. It also wasn't
made clear where it was getting the biomass to grow from the size of a rat
to > human size in a few hours.

The cocoon scene somewhat addressed this by implying that abductees have
something done to them that makes them into fresh spores, leaving the food
question as the only one outstanding.

So not really sure why we need a queen.
 >> Stay informed about: Aliens: things they didn't ought to have done 

"Doctor J. Frink" <frink.TakeThisOut@homer.cmp.liv.ac.uk> wrote

> Well, one explanation could be that in A1 we had a lone Alien, and in A2
> there were ultimately lots of them running around.

Well, yes, but in A2 we had a special type of alien commonly referred to as
a warrior. So what was the specimen in A1? A drone? In either case the
infestation would start with one specimen, so what's the path that leads to
a queen, etc.?

The first 2 are great movies and the details don't unduly bother me; the
payoff of having the queen, i.e. the showdown versus the pwerloader, is
worth it. I am not wholly convinced by the evolutionary case for the
lifecycle we see in A2 though.
 >> Stay informed about: Aliens: things they didn't ought to have done 

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:43:07 -0000, "John Redman"
<johnphilipredman RemoveThis @hotmailREMOVETHEBLEEDINOBVIOUS.com> wrote:

>> Well, one explanation could be that in A1 we had a lone Alien, and in A2
>> there were ultimately lots of them running around.
>
>Well, yes, but in A2 we had a special type of alien commonly referred to as
>a warrior. So what was the specimen in A1? A drone?

Both soldiers, I'd say. The alien hive appears to be genderless.

>In either case the
>infestation would start with one specimen, so what's the path that leads to
>a queen, etc.?

For a lone soldier (or queenless hive), I'd say the path is like this:

1. Soldier alien captures first host...
2. Soldier alien cocoons first host and injects it with viral
mutagen...
3. First host metamorphoses into queen egg...
4. Soldier alien captures second host...
5. Queen egg hatches and queen facehugger attaches to and impregnates
second host...
6. Queen alien births from second host...
7. Queen alien matures and begins laying soldier eggs.

For an established hive, I'd say the queen simply lays a queen egg
when it's near the end of its life. Otherwise, the soldiers create a
new queen using the above method.

Keith
 >> Stay informed about: Aliens: things they didn't ought to have done 

"Keith Hazelwood" <unknown.TakeThisOut@unknown.net> wrote in message
news:m1mbu0dlcv46d27vppm2ahssvlv4i2aua5@4ax.com...

> Besides, It made more sense than the rather inefficient
> two-hosts-per-alien method of reproduction that Dan O'Bannon cooked up
> for the original film.

Ackshewlly, He didn't, Keith.

The alien could make new eggs from as many *victims* as are available to it.
(Possibly only if they were alive. But I dunno if Brett actually survived
his *strike*.)


--
Covenant
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands
 >> Stay informed about: Aliens: things they didn't ought to have done 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:42:51 +1300, Adam Cameron
<adam_junk.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>This is an interesting conversation, Keith
>(and it distracts me from the fact I'm still in the office @ 9pm on a
>Friday, and I should be working... more about that below...).

What??? You should be drinking by now!

>Their method of doing it is far better than ours.

Conceded.

But I wasn't comparing our method to theirs. I was comparing their
two methods to *each other* when I called the original inefficient.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear the first time around.

>> You're talking about efficiency in terms of time. I'm talking about
>> it in terms of numbers of aliens.
>
>It's the same number of aliens at each step with either type. It's simply
>how fast they go through the resources.

Maybe I'm missing the math here. Can you use the population of
Hadley's Hope as your example?

I'm guess I'm just failing to see how both methods can result in the
same number of aliens if only half the colonsts can be used as hosts
in the original lifecycle versus ALL the colonists being used as hosts
in the other. In the original, you get roughly 75 aliens versus the
queen method, in which you end up with roughly 150.

Am I wrong?

Keith
 >> Stay informed about: Aliens: things they didn't ought to have done 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:47:34 GMT, "ADWatts"
<adwatts RemoveThis @graphic-designer.com> wrote:

>There is absolutely nothing which contridicts my theory. It
>certainly isn't *fact* by any stretch of the imagination, but
>neither is yours.

You're right. In fact, I e-mailed Mike Lynch just now to what he
thinks, since the Anchorpoint Essays are silent on whether or not the
viral agent would work in anything but a living host.

Keith
 >> Stay informed about: Aliens: things they didn't ought to have done 

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:14:50 -0000, "Covenant"
<covenant.RemoveThis@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>> The entire lifecycle is dealt with in the Anchorpoint Essays. I
>> highly recommend reading them since they cover much of what we discuss
>> here.
>
>But written by people with no more (or indeed less) knowledge than most of
>those involved in the discussion in here.

So what? I thought my earlier disclaimer that it wasn't canon was
enough. Just because theywere written by a fan doesn't mean the
theories aren't well researched and thought out.

Keith
 >> Stay informed about: Aliens: things they didn't ought to have done