Our Alien 5

[oduodu]

Forgot to add: "which they refuse to milk"

So true

[Xenomorphine]

What answer doesn't?

Any answer.

Raising questions just for the sake of doing so, is a bad thing.

[OmegaZilla]

So who was to blame for de gigerising ??
Scott ?? Right ??

Who was to blame for humanising the whole thing ??
Spaihts ?? Right??

Who was to blame for not going the Lovecraftian way. No idea.

Scott came up with the idea of a suit. Spaihts came up with the idea that inside the suit was a human (because, apparently, if you write a story about the space jockey you have to relate to the space jockey... pile of apologist nonsense).

IIRC Arthur Max decided that they should stray from Giger's style and Scott agreed on that. So there.

[NickisSmart]

What answer doesn't?

Any answer.

Raising questions just for the sake of doing so, is a bad thing.

Because...?

And provide me an answer that doesn't raise any questions. Because what you seem to be talking about is faith, or acceptance of things without wanting to understand them, ignorance being bliss. If you want to understand something you ask a question, especially when provided an answer. It's not like you get an answer and it just stops... unless you're told the world was created in 6 days, 5000 years ago and that answer is so satisfactory that you stop asking questions. To me, to not ask questions is a bad thing.

[D. Compton Ambrose]

What answer doesn't?

Any answer.

Raising questions just for the sake of doing so, is a bad thing.

Raising questions for the sake of inducing a fear of the unknown is a good thing.

[NickisSmart]

^

This is pretty much what I was hoping for.

[Xenomorphine]

Because...?

And provide me an answer that doesn't raise any questions. Because what you seem to be talking about is faith, or acceptance of things without wanting to understand them, ignorance being bliss. If you want to understand something you ask a question, especially when provided an answer. It's not like you get an answer and it just stops... unless you're told the world was created in 6 days, 5000 years ago and that answer is so satisfactory that you stop asking questions. To me, to not ask questions is a bad thing.

I'm talking about narrative. Raising questions for no reason other than to raise questions... What's the point? If you do that too obviously/repetitively, then the audience will feel cheated because they don't get a satisfying sense of resolution.

'Prometheus' does it both ways: It sets up the premise of the Engineers having creators/origins of their own, which Shaw is now going to try and investigate. But it also goes the nonsensical route of all the other things, like the Engineer suddenly going psychotic without any clear motivation to do so.

The first helps to give the overall story a sense of momentum. The latter creates a WTF moment just because it can.

Likewise, can anyone seriously claim that 'Alien 3' in any way benefited from the illogical appearance of an egg? All that ever did was to generate frustration in both the fandom and casual viewers, alike.

Raising questions for the sake of inducing a fear of the unknown is a good thing.

That's about generating a foreboding sense of atmosphere, though. Trying to recapture the age-old feeling of 'here be dragons'.

Mystery can have a place in certain genres. Particular stories benefit from it, if not require it. Crime thrillers, for instance. But you need Columbo to have his, "One more thing," moment - where the crime is solved. You don't end the story by having the detective admit they don't have a clue who committed the crime (or, even worse, whether or not any crime even happened, in the first place).

The moment you do that, the audience will feel cheated, because all you're doing is setting up questions for questions' sake. There's nothing to be gained by it and the audience instinctively knows that.

[Murfy426]

Sometimes answers can be more horrifying in their instant clarity than a confusing maze of questions but the answers must break the bones of our expectations and understanding.

[pred169]

I think they would have stood a much better chance if they hadn't effectively been disarmed before going in the 'nursery chamber'. It immediately put them on the wrong foot, psychologically.

Like Dutch's squad in 'Predator', you do get a plausible sense of these people being professionals who would usually be able to deal with an otherwise hectic situation.

Films like 'Doom' don't bother doing that. They just have their characters proclaim they're 'the best' without ever feeling like they've earned it (and then run around like headless teenagers).

I agree. Being disarmed definitely had a good bit to do with the way things went. It more or less demoralized them before they even had a chance to do battle. You could see it in their faces and hear it in their voices. Especially when they started hearing the hissing and the motion trackers lit up. They were rattled. And if you're already psychologically beaten before the conflict starts...you've already lost.
   The way the whole conflict played out can be blamed on a lack of leadership. If they had a more competent commanding officer I think things would have played out differently. The marines didn't lose that fight.... Gorman did. He had no experience as an OIC and when something was brought to his attention he was too arrogant to listen. Not to mention he froze under pressure. When the proverbial shit started to hit the fan.. he completely shut down.
   If he were an experienced officer he would have noticed they were right under the cooling towers before he even sent troops in. And he would have compensated for the inability to use conventional firearms. He would have selected a different set of weapons and tactics all together.

[NickisSmart]

@Xenomorphine:

Well, breaking away from the same old pattern of story telling is jarring. It also is closer to real life, which has both momentum and inexplicable WTF moments. It's all chaos, in the grand scheme of things. Life is a tale told by an idiot, to paraphrase the Bard. Full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.

[D. Compton Ambrose]

@Xenomorphine:

Well, breaking away from the same old pattern of story telling is jarring. It also is closer to real life, which has both momentum and inexplicable WTF moments. It's all chaos, in the grand scheme of things. Life is a tale told by an idiot, to paraphrase the Bard. Full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.

It isn't that simple either. Horror is the best way to describe how raising more questions can produce a sense of strangeness. It isn't blood and gore, it is about how strange something is. How out of the ordinary is it, and how enigmatic the nature of this thing is. Explaining everything away isn't going to make everyone happy.

[NickisSmart]

I'm happiest when my imagination has room to work, and you can't do that if everything is answered. Likewise, having room to ask questions allows the imagination to balloon.

Also, from a fear standpoint, I'll quote the villain from Peeping Tom: "Do you know what the scariest thing in the world is?

It's fear."

I agree with him. But furthermore, as Rob Ager once said in his review of Halloween, "All fear is imaginary, therefore irrational." Unless you're actually dying, everything up to the final moment is your imagination being your worst enemy. Without imagination, fear is effectively harmless, I think. And being a product of the irrational mind, fear is something that is defined by a lack of reason or answers. The Scooby Doo Monsters are less scary once Velma unmasks them.

[D. Compton Ambrose]

I'm happiest when my imagination has room to work, and you can't do that if everything is answered. Likewise, having room to ask questions allows the imagination to balloon.

Also, from a fear standpoint, I'll quote the villain from Peeping Tom: "Do you know what the scariest thing in the world is?

It's fear."

I agree with him. But furthermore, as Rob Ager once said in his review of Halloween, "All fear is imaginary, therefore irrational." Unless you're actually dying, everything up to the final moment is your imagination being your worst enemy. Without imagination, fear is effectively harmless, I think. And being a product of the irrational mind, fear is something that is defined by a lack of reason or answers. The Scooby Doo Monsters are less scary once Velma unmasks them.

Well said.

[Alien³]

The Scooby Doo Monsters are less scary once Velma unmasks them.

That is what I love about the Engineers. It's like we've unmasked some ghoulish adversary but we haven't stopped them (assuming they're still alive) or understand why they're doing what they're doing. The underlining problem for the most part is if we'll ever find out.

Luckily the sequel is coming.

[oduodu]

So who was to blame for de gigerising ??
Scott ?? Right ??

Who was to blame for humanising the whole thing ??
Spaihts ?? Right??

Who was to blame for not going the Lovecraftian way. No idea.

Scott came up with the idea of a suit. Spaihts came up with the idea that inside the suit was a human (because, apparently, if you write a story about the space jockey you have to relate to the space jockey... pile of apologist nonsense).

IIRC Arthur Max decided that they should stray from Giger's style and Scott agreed on that. So there.

Oh I understood that scott gave specific instructions to de gigerise the whole thing. But scott ended up agreeing with max. So he must then cop the blame for that.

because, apparently, if you write a story about the space jockey you have to relate to the space jockey... pile of apologist nonsense

Totally agree . That's what made alien great you couldn't relate to the space jockey.

But alas...