AvPGalaxy Forums

Films/TV => Alien Films => Topic started by: The Cruentus on Feb 05, 2021, 02:17:19 PM

Title: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Feb 05, 2021, 02:17:19 PM
Now as some folks may know, I do tend to be a bit nitpicky when it comes to some aspects of the franchises, namely the level realism and plausibility in them, which I found lacking in the recent entries.

One of the reasons why I prefer to see Resurrection as more of a parody than a true entry is because of more goofy parts in it, such as Ripley 8 being basically a super soldier.

Later entries like Prometheus and Covenent tended to increase the levels of the required suspense of disbelief as well, too grandiose in its display than keeping things plausible. Then the EU had telepathy and wacky hybrids.

Good or bad, Its all so far removed from how the first film started which was fairly grounded bar a few things. Which brings me to the point of this thread.

And that is that even the first film had scientific inaccuracies and other flaws.

So I would like y'all to list all the scientific errors within the first film and explain your why.

EDIT
I will put one out I am noticing now, though it could have an explanation I don't know.

Maybe this be could be due to repressurizing of the Nostromo atmosphere but there should not be any drafts or things blowing about if there is no air.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 05, 2021, 08:00:19 PM
The spores from Covenant are based in lifeforms you find in nature. In particular Lycoperdon Perlatum, a mushroom which is only edible while the meat is white (which is when it is young), But when the fungus is old it can no longer be eaten, its flesh turns brown and when pressed it releases spores as part of its life cycle.

(https://i.ibb.co/yhjV990/images.jpg)

(https://i.ibb.co/9w07L9T/a0u7ca3rui421.jpg)

(https://i.ibb.co/KNP0V9P/1024px-Pedo-de-lobo-Lycoperdon-perlatum-Hartelholz-M-nich-Alemania-2020-12-01-DD-245-299-FS.jpg)

(https://s2.gifyu.com/images/cfe885f7-3a50-4403-b477-e715e316f2e2.gif)

And our beloved monster is an exaggerated version of nature, but still far from the spectrum of fantasy, imo  :)

(https://s2.gifyu.com/images/7Yo3pcP.gif)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Feb 05, 2021, 09:02:15 PM
That is not what I meant by covenant but no worries  :laugh:

Anything to add about the first film?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 05, 2021, 10:15:33 PM
Oh sorry  :laugh: I don't know if it is a inaccuracy, but it is undoubtedly omitted what the Alien is made of, in order to make the acid blood more believable.

Quote from: New ScientistThe Alien is also equipped, throughout its life, with very strong acid for blood. For that to work, the rest of it must be made of Teflon, as conventional organic tissue would obviously be destroyed.

Five science fiction movies that get the science right

Also how is it that Big Chap grew so much in such a short time. What did it eat? Does the creature need to eat at all? Although again, these are omissions and not so much inaccuracies. Is part of the world-building of a fictional setting with its own rules.

Now about LV-426, Ash described the moon as "deep cold... way below the line". However you have some geysers activity over there.



Initially, it seems to belong to a celestial body with a lot of geological activity, which would imply a thicker atmosphere. However, you don't need volcanic activity for similar phenomena.



Quote from: ESAThe plumes, resembling geysers on Earth, may be linked to the existence of underground reservoirs of liquid water. Cassini's data show that the ejections, localised in a confined region of the south pole, are dominated by the presence of water, with significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane.

Geysers on Saturn's moon Enceladus indicate liquid water

I bet the volcanic activity in Cameron's Aliens must have been from terraforming.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: [cancerblack] on Feb 05, 2021, 10:17:41 PM
I assume we're not going to bother with the FTL and magic gravity?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 05, 2021, 10:19:24 PM
Or a 1200km planetoid having near-Earth gravity.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Stitch on Feb 05, 2021, 10:37:32 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 05, 2021, 10:19:24 PM
Or a 1200km planetoid having near-Earth gravity.
Really, really f**king dense core.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Kradan on Feb 05, 2021, 11:01:56 PM
Quote from: [cancerblack] on Feb 05, 2021, 10:17:41 PM
I assume we're not going to bother with the FTL and magic gravity?

They stayed home 'cause their ships were too slow

THE END
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 05, 2021, 11:17:45 PM
Quote from: Kradan on Feb 05, 2021, 11:01:56 PM
Quote from: [cancerblack] on Feb 05, 2021, 10:17:41 PM
I assume we're not going to bother with the FTL and magic gravity?

They stayed home 'cause their ships were too slow

THE END

That's the magic of *imagining drums and epic dramatic music*

(https://s2.gifyu.com/images/9e358cb9-9616-48e0-91c9-ba1e225b3cda.gif)

It has its own rules  :laugh:




Quote from: Stitch on Feb 05, 2021, 10:37:32 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 05, 2021, 10:19:24 PM
Or a 1200km planetoid having near-Earth gravity.
Really, really f**king dense core.

Doesn't this mean that Cameron's Aliens is more scientifically accurate than Ridley Scott's Alien?  :o

The terraforming thing, I mean  :-X
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 01:34:40 AM
Quote from: Stitch on Feb 05, 2021, 10:37:32 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 05, 2021, 10:19:24 PM
Or a 1200km planetoid having near-Earth gravity.
Really, really f**king dense core.
It's not 1200km.

A "dense core" would be an understatement, it would require planet made entirely of a material that's off the periodic table. Like, several orders of magnitude beyond the densest material known to science (including black dwarfs, which the universe is not old enough to have yet) and neutron stars.
There's a reason the CMTM corrects Lambert's mis-speak. :P
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 06, 2021, 01:53:59 AM
At least we know the Space Jockey isn't that old, I mean Dallas didn't use any instrument to date the remains. And the creature was not covered by bodies of water or sediment, therefore it is not a fossil.

(https://i.ibb.co/3crjcfB/IMG-20210205-225731-094.jpg)

Quote from: Live ScienceThe most common method of fossilization is called permineralization, or petrification. After an organism's soft tissues decay in sediment, the hard parts — particularly the bones — are left behind.

Water seeps into the remains, and minerals dissolved in the water seep into the spaces within the remains, where they form crystals. These crystallized minerals cause the remamins to harden along with the encasing sedimentary rock.

How Do Fossils Form

But! you don't need permineralization or so much time for mummification.

Quote from: New York TimesBodies left in hot, arid environments can typically mummify in about two weeks, while the process typically takes a couple of months in enclosed locations. Remains in mild environments take about three months.

How to Make a Mummy (Accidentally)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 02:28:17 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 01:34:40 AM
Quote from: Stitch on Feb 05, 2021, 10:37:32 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 05, 2021, 10:19:24 PM
Or a 1200km planetoid having near-Earth gravity.

Really, really f**king dense core.

It's not 1200km.

SM says it's 1,200 km. (https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=56154.msg2185065#msg2185065)

Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 02:42:49 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 06, 2021, 01:53:59 AM
At least we know the Space Jockey isn't that old
We don't know that at all. :)

Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 02:28:17 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 01:34:40 AM
Quote from: Stitch on Feb 05, 2021, 10:37:32 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 05, 2021, 10:19:24 PM
Or a 1200km planetoid having near-Earth gravity.

Really, really f**king dense core.

It's not 1200km.

SM says it's 1,200 km. (https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=56154.msg2185065#msg2185065)
Andrew Gaska says it's 12,000km.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 02:49:43 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 02:42:49 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 02:28:17 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 01:34:40 AM
Quote from: Stitch on Feb 05, 2021, 10:37:32 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 05, 2021, 10:19:24 PM
Or a 1200km planetoid having near-Earth gravity.

Really, really f**king dense core.

It's not 1200km.

SM says it's 1,200 km. (https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=56154.msg2185065#msg2185065)

Andrew Gaska says it's 12,000km.

Where was this?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 02:57:37 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 02:49:43 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 02:42:49 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 02:28:17 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 01:34:40 AM
Quote from: Stitch on Feb 05, 2021, 10:37:32 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 05, 2021, 10:19:24 PM
Or a 1200km planetoid having near-Earth gravity.

Really, really f**king dense core.

It's not 1200km.

SM says it's 1,200 km. (https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=56154.msg2185065#msg2185065)

Andrew Gaska says it's 12,000km.

Where was this?
It was going to be in the RPG core book but got omitted to give players/GMs the choice to go with either Lambert's number from the deleted scene or the CMTM's number, but it seems like "officially" it's 12,000km and that's the number he gives if you ask him.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:07:07 AM
I knew this would become the main topic of this thread :laugh:
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 03:50:08 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:07:07 AM
I knew this would become the main topic of this thread :laugh:
Another scientific inaccuracy is in 'Alien3' when the egg materializes on the Sulaco out of thin air.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:52:09 AM
Scientifically accurate Canon.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: [cancerblack] on Feb 06, 2021, 03:54:59 AM
Uh, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that... a wizard did it.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:07:07 AM
I knew this would become the main topic of this thread :laugh:

How else are we going to get a canon war?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 06, 2021, 04:30:45 AM
Quote from: [cancerblack] on Feb 06, 2021, 03:54:59 AM
Uh, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that... a wizard did it.

(https://s2.gifyu.com/images/bd95f4a1-41d1-4063-8371-6df456c238a6.gif)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 04:31:42 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:07:07 AM
I knew this would become the main topic of this thread :laugh:

How else are we going to get a canon war?
The canon wars are over
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 04:33:06 AM
I don't know a lot about science but the Alien universe feels less scientifically plausible and more fantasy as times goes on.

Sci-fi futures like The Expanse feel far more plausible and based in science while still having the impossible elements.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Kradan on Feb 06, 2021, 06:22:12 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 04:31:42 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:07:07 AM
I knew this would become the main topic of this thread :laugh:

How else are we going to get a canon war?
The canon wars are over

People thought World War I was gonna be "the war to end all wars" - and we all know how that turned out
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Feb 06, 2021, 10:18:59 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 02:57:37 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 02:49:43 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 02:42:49 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 02:28:17 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 01:34:40 AM
Quote from: Stitch on Feb 05, 2021, 10:37:32 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 05, 2021, 10:19:24 PM
Or a 1200km planetoid having near-Earth gravity.

Really, really f**king dense core.

It's not 1200km.

SM says it's 1,200 km. (https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=56154.msg2185065#msg2185065)

Andrew Gaska says it's 12,000km.

Where was this?
It was going to be in the RPG core book but got omitted to give players/GMs the choice to go with either Lambert's number from the deleted scene or the CMTM's number, but it seems like "officially" it's 12,000km and that's the number he gives if you ask him.
Not to go off topic but what I like about what Gaska did is that he basically created a Schrödinger''s canon, where is entirely up to the player.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 03:50:08 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:07:07 AM
I knew this would become the main topic of this thread :laugh:
Another scientific inaccuracy is in 'Alien3' when the egg materializes on the Sulaco out of thin air.
Damn it Xeno, we are still on Alien, give me a chance to create that thread lol  :laugh:

Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 04:33:06 AM
I don't know a lot about science but the Alien universe feels less scientifically plausible and more fantasy as times goes on.

Sci-fi futures like The Expanse feel far more plausible and based in science while still having the impossible elements.

Agreed, especially when newer entries have been going for grandiose visuals and presentation over nuances and grounded science.


Someone brought up gravity and that is another thing, the ship should not have gravity really, I think I read once that in order for there to be gravity there would need to be some sort of rotation or something, I am not sure if I remembering right.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 06, 2021, 11:14:10 AM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Feb 06, 2021, 10:18:59 AM
Not to go off topic but what I like about what Gaska did is that he basically created a Schrödinger''s canon, where is entirely up to the player.

This means my beloved Alien is alive in 2004 and not alive in 2004 at the same time?  :o

(https://s2.gifyu.com/images/giphy-1646e60b30133736c.gif)

But at the same time again, I am like the cat ... sorry I meant like an Alien movie, and someone is watching me to force nature to collapse into one of the two realities *spooky time*  😱

(https://i.ibb.co/0YwbtNd/Pics-Art-02-06-09-49-02.png)

Checkmate atheists  8)

(https://s2.gifyu.com/images/2002fb6b187555e2c8a.gif)




Edit: That wasn't serious :P
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Whiskeybrewer on Feb 06, 2021, 11:28:31 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 04:31:42 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:07:07 AM
I knew this would become the main topic of this thread :laugh:

How else are we going to get a canon war?
The canon wars are over

Begun, The Second Great Canon Wars Have
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 06, 2021, 12:31:53 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Feb 06, 2021, 10:18:59 AM
Someone brought up gravity and that is another thing, the ship should not have gravity really, I think I read once that in order for there to be gravity there would need to be some sort of rotation or something, I am not sure if I remembering right.

Oh yeah  :laugh:

(https://s2.gifyu.com/images/unnamedd68adbb4a75ed1c2.gif)

Quote from: WikipediaArtificial gravity can be created using a centripetal force. A centripetal force directed towards the center of the turn is required for any object to move in a circular path. In the context of a rotating space station it is the normal force provided by the spacecraft's hull that acts as centripetal force.

Artificial Gravity



There was a rotating space habitat in Prometheus early days 🧐

Quote from: Steve Burg via ArtstationIn early versions of the script, Weyland's headquarters was an immense orbital ring.









Work done for "Prometheus" in the early days...
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 06, 2021, 02:55:15 PM
Perhaps all the ships have an internal gravity centrifuge somewhere. 
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 06, 2021, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: Whiskeybrewer on Feb 06, 2021, 11:28:31 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 04:31:42 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:07:07 AM
I knew this would become the main topic of this thread :laugh:

How else are we going to get a canon war?
The canon wars are over

Begun, The Second Great Canon Wars Have

"Second"?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: [cancerblack] on Feb 06, 2021, 09:40:05 PM
Note how many moderators B&CT needed compared to the other boards:

(https://i.gyazo.com/00cbee552734a86917acf649c5a434f7.png)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 09:46:38 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 06, 2021, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: Whiskeybrewer on Feb 06, 2021, 11:28:31 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 04:31:42 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:07:07 AM
I knew this would become the main topic of this thread :laugh:

How else are we going to get a canon war?
The canon wars are over

Begun, The Second Great Canon Wars Have

"Second"?


So... 1,200 km?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 06, 2021, 11:41:28 PM
Perhaps the 99.9% scientifically accurate Alien has a space rover named Kane that finds a space covid among its samples, which is transported to the international space station, against the will of the Joint Operations Commander Ripley.

(https://i.ibb.co/c6ff1RL/Pics-Art-02-06-08-32-42.jpg)

(https://s2.gifyu.com/images/6e3e79be-8f26-43f0-9052-89e0425209da.gif)




Quote from: Trash Queen on Feb 06, 2021, 02:55:15 PM
Perhaps all the ships have an internal gravity centrifuge somewhere.

If it hasn't been addressed yet, maybe Gaska should consider it for the rpg.




Quote from: SM on Feb 06, 2021, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: Whiskeybrewer on Feb 06, 2021, 11:28:31 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 04:31:42 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:07:07 AM
I knew this would become the main topic of this thread :laugh:

How else are we going to get a canon war?
The canon wars are over

Begun, The Second Great Canon Wars Have

"Second"?


Earth 2's Third Canon War. There are prequelzZz...
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 11:49:08 PM
Quote from: [cancerblack] on Feb 06, 2021, 09:40:05 PM
Note how many moderators B&CT needed compared to the other boards:

(https://i.gyazo.com/00cbee552734a86917acf649c5a434f7.png)

Good times!
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: immortalundead on Feb 07, 2021, 01:06:17 AM
Quote from: [cancerblack] on Feb 06, 2021, 09:40:05 PM
Note how many moderators B&CT needed compared to the other boards:

(https://i.gyazo.com/00cbee552734a86917acf649c5a434f7.png)

off topic, but which forum was that back then? having major flashbacks to that page.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 01:24:05 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 09:46:38 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 06, 2021, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: Whiskeybrewer on Feb 06, 2021, 11:28:31 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 04:31:42 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:07:07 AM
I knew this would become the main topic of this thread :laugh:

How else are we going to get a canon war?
The canon wars are over

Begun, The Second Great Canon Wars Have

"Second"?


So... 1,200 km?
About 10 times that, actually
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 01:29:28 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 01:24:05 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 09:46:38 PM
So... 1,200 km?

About 10 times that, actually

So... roughly the size of Earth and Venus?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: [cancerblack] on Feb 07, 2021, 01:59:49 AM
Quote from: immortalundead on Feb 07, 2021, 01:06:17 AM
Quote from: [cancerblack] on Feb 06, 2021, 09:40:05 PM
Note how many moderators B&CT needed compared to the other boards:

(https://i.gyazo.com/00cbee552734a86917acf649c5a434f7.png)

off topic, but which forum was that back then? having major flashbacks to that page.

AvPNews/Game Gossip


Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 11:49:08 PM
Quote from: [cancerblack] on Feb 06, 2021, 09:40:05 PM
Note how many moderators B&CT needed compared to the other boards:

(https://i.gyazo.com/00cbee552734a86917acf649c5a434f7.png)

Good times!

Yup. Found myself in the "members online" footer in one of the Wayback Machine archives from like 2002 hahaha.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 02:09:02 AM
Can you dig up any classic posts from the old cowl/caste wars?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 07, 2021, 02:29:48 AM
(https://s2.gifyu.com/images/EnergeticImprobableHoneycreeper-size_restricted.gif)[

Wow Canon Wars has its own spinoff  :o :o :o You always learn something new from the veterans.




Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 07, 2021, 02:31:08 AM
Prequel.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 07, 2021, 02:45:35 AM
You're right  ;D
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 03:02:41 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 09:46:38 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 06, 2021, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: Whiskeybrewer on Feb 06, 2021, 11:28:31 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 04:31:42 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:07:07 AM
I knew this would become the main topic of this thread :laugh:

How else are we going to get a canon war?
The canon wars are over

Begun, The Second Great Canon Wars Have

"Second"?


So... 1,200 km?

Consult the source material.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:21:39 AM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 03:02:41 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 09:46:38 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 06, 2021, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: Whiskeybrewer on Feb 06, 2021, 11:28:31 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 04:31:42 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:07:07 AM
I knew this would become the main topic of this thread :laugh:

How else are we going to get a canon war?
The canon wars are over

Begun, The Second Great Canon Wars Have

"Second"?


So... 1,200 km?

Consult the source material.
Already done.


Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 02:09:02 AM
Can you dig up any classic posts from the old cowl/caste wars?
No need to revisit literally 20 year old posts from another forum. :)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:25:34 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:21:39 AM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 03:02:41 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 09:46:38 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 06, 2021, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: Whiskeybrewer on Feb 06, 2021, 11:28:31 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 04:31:42 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:07:07 AM
I knew this would become the main topic of this thread :laugh:

How else are we going to get a canon war?

The canon wars are over

Begun, The Second Great Canon Wars Have

"Second"?


So... 1,200 km?

Consult the source material.

Already done.

The source material?  Let's see, let's see... Ah, here we are.  In the source material, Lambert (aka the Nostromo's navigator) said: "It's a planetoid.  Twelve-hundred kilometers."

:o

Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:21:39 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 02:09:02 AM
Can you dig up any classic posts from the old cowl/caste wars?

No need to revisit literally 20 year old posts from another forum. :)

But they'd be totally new to me.  I've never seen them.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 07, 2021, 03:28:35 AM
(https://s2.gifyu.com/images/a41e8586-0713-4d89-9af5-a23bafa39d4e.gif)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:29:16 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:25:34 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:21:39 AM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 03:02:41 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 09:46:38 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 06, 2021, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: Whiskeybrewer on Feb 06, 2021, 11:28:31 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 04:31:42 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:07:07 AM
I knew this would become the main topic of this thread :laugh:

How else are we going to get a canon war?

The canon wars are over

Begun, The Second Great Canon Wars Have

"Second"?


So... 1,200 km?

Consult the source material.

Already done.

The source material?  Let's see, let's see... Ah, here we are.  In the source material, Lambert (aka the Nostromo's navigator) said: "It's a planetoid.  Twelve-hundred kilometers."

:o
That's not what they show us, though. ;)

Kane even immediately calls her number out as being nonsensical, too. :P

Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:25:34 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:21:39 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 02:09:02 AM
Can you dig up any classic posts from the old cowl/caste wars?

No need to revisit literally 20 year old posts from another forum. :)

But they'd be totally new to me.  I've never seen them.
Then go find them yourself, no need to post about decades old drama from a dead forum. :)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:37:13 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:29:16 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:25:34 AM
The source material?  Let's see, let's see... Ah, here we are.  In the source material, Lambert (aka the Nostromo's navigator) said: "It's a planetoid.  Twelve-hundred kilometers."

:o
That's not what they show us, though. ;)

Kane even immediately calls her number out as being nonsensical, too. :P

I don't recall seeing a giant tape measure next to the planet and all Kane said was, "It's tiny."

Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:29:16 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:25:34 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:21:39 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 02:09:02 AM
Can you dig up any classic posts from the old cowl/caste wars?

No need to revisit literally 20 year old posts from another forum. :)

But they'd be totally new to me.  I've never seen them.

Then go find them yourself, no need to post about decades old drama from a dead forum. :)

But I wasn't asking you to find them for me.  :)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 07, 2021, 03:41:54 AM
(https://i.ibb.co/RvjN7pD/4x0n6o.jpg)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: kwisatz on Feb 07, 2021, 03:46:52 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:25:34 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:21:39 AM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 03:02:41 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 09:46:38 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 06, 2021, 09:29:13 PM
Quote from: Whiskeybrewer on Feb 06, 2021, 11:28:31 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 06, 2021, 04:31:42 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 06, 2021, 04:01:01 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 06, 2021, 03:07:07 AM
I knew this would become the main topic of this thread :laugh:

How else are we going to get a canon war?

The canon wars are over

Begun, The Second Great Canon Wars Have

"Second"?


So... 1,200 km?

Consult the source material.

Already done.



(https://i1.wp.com/ilikeinterfaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/00_16_3200053.png?ssl=1)



Art.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:48:50 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:37:13 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:29:16 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:25:34 AM
The source material?  Let's see, let's see... Ah, here we are.  In the source material, Lambert (aka the Nostromo's navigator) said: "It's a planetoid.  Twelve-hundred kilometers."

:o
That's not what they show us, though. ;)

Kane even immediately calls her number out as being nonsensical, too. :P

I don't recall seeing a giant tape measure next to the planet and all Kane said was, "It's tiny."
Indicating that he felt it was nonsense. We don't see a tape measure, but we do see them land on the planet, walk around on it, and it have gravity and an atmosphere, though.

The point is it's not a scientific inaccuracy when the science gets fixed. :)
What Lambert says is scientifically inaccurate, but thankfully the film fixes her error with what it shows us.

Quote
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:29:16 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:25:34 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:21:39 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 02:09:02 AM
Can you dig up any classic posts from the old cowl/caste wars?

No need to revisit literally 20 year old posts from another forum. :)

But they'd be totally new to me.  I've never seen them.

Then go find them yourself, no need to post about decades old drama from a dead forum. :)

But I wasn't asking you to find them for me.  :)
No, but you were asking others to. :)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:59:51 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:48:50 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:37:13 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:29:16 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:25:34 AM
The source material?  Let's see, let's see... Ah, here we are.  In the source material, Lambert (aka the Nostromo's navigator) said: "It's a planetoid.  Twelve-hundred kilometers."

:o

That's not what they show us, though. ;)

Kane even immediately calls her number out as being nonsensical, too. :P

I don't recall seeing a giant tape measure next to the planet and all Kane said was, "It's tiny."

Indicating that he felt it was nonsense. We don't see a tape measure, but we do see them land on the planet, walk around on it, and it have gravity and an atmosphere, though.

The point is it's not a scientific inaccuracy when the science gets fixed. :)
What Lambert says is scientifically inaccurate, but thankfully the film fixes her error with what it shows us.

You're reading an awful lot into Kane's remark.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:48:50 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:37:13 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:29:16 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:25:34 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:21:39 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 02:09:02 AM
Can you dig up any classic posts from the old cowl/caste wars?

No need to revisit literally 20 year old posts from another forum. :)

But they'd be totally new to me.  I've never seen them.

Then go find them yourself, no need to post about decades old drama from a dead forum. :)

But I wasn't asking you to find them for me.  :)

No, but you were asking others to. :)

That's just because I'm lazy.  If you like, I can do it myself.  Is that what you really want?  ;)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 07, 2021, 04:12:44 AM
(https://i.ibb.co/cX4yCTK/8ffba465-e0c4-4e0b-9f01-173669c84edb.gif)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 04:14:10 AM
Quote
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:48:50 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:37:13 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:29:16 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:25:34 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:21:39 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 02:09:02 AM
Can you dig up any classic posts from the old cowl/caste wars?

No need to revisit literally 20 year old posts from another forum. :)

But they'd be totally new to me.  I've never seen them.

Then go find them yourself, no need to post about decades old drama from a dead forum. :)

But I wasn't asking you to find them for me.  :)

No, but you were asking others to. :)

That's just because I'm lazy.  If you like, I can do it myself.  Is that what you really want?  ;)
Go find whatever you want, no need to post about it here though. :)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 04:17:57 AM
I can feel the love in this thread :)  ;)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 04:22:40 AM
Eureka!
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 07, 2021, 04:36:34 AM
(https://i.ibb.co/CK3dRjQ/7159047d-4107-492f-b800-9c017029b1b0.gif)




Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 04:17:57 AM
I can feel the love in this thread :)  ;)

Do you love shit sometimes?  :o

I can assist you in that  :laugh:
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 04:37:02 AM
SM's old avatar:

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWupxe1F.gif&hash=63cde127434b5b1547a0272452187f8e3ed7ff58)

I feel like that guy in AvP who found that old bottle cap.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: kwisatz on Feb 07, 2021, 04:52:24 AM
I hope Prequel SM doesn't turn from Vader into Anakin for you.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 05:00:58 AM
So far, SM-before-he-shed-his-avatar is acting perfectly in line with my expectations.  My childhood remains unharmed.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: [cancerblack] on Feb 07, 2021, 05:26:47 AM
It's moot anyway because of how archive.org works, but I agree with Xenomrph.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 05:33:43 AM
That's fine.  I've already found more than I could have ever hoped for.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 07, 2021, 05:41:49 AM
Meh no matter how many gossiping canon wars have taken place in the past, SM has no body. He's the force; a powerful ally.

(https://s2.gifyu.com/images/sw-pizza.gif)

He can materialize an Alien egg out of nowhere.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 05:47:03 AM
I've long suspected that SM only existed in cyberspace (or the information superhighway, if you prefer).  Like the T3 version of Skynet.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: kwisatz on Feb 07, 2021, 06:02:46 AM
I thought he has kids.

More like Ghost in the Shell then --
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 06:32:41 AM
Even the programs in the Matrix could have kids.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Kradan on Feb 07, 2021, 06:44:43 AM
I still think, you and SM conspired so Egg on Sulaco thread could go on forever
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 07:00:35 AM
Oh, it goes a lot deeper than that.

SM and I actually collaborated in the making of Alien 3 and put that egg shot in there.  Much like Kubrick and his Apollo 11 confession in The Shining, David Fincher made an oblique reference to our handiwork in Fight Club with the whole thing about splicing frames of porn into family films.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 07:16:32 AM
I feel like a weight has been lifted.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 07:27:05 AM
Hey, we were young and ol' Finch was fed up with the studio by then.  Since we were the ones who warned him earlier that the different cryotubes would annoy the hardcore fans, he knew who to come to for advice when he wanted to burn the whole thing down.  SM and I came up with the magic egg and the rest is history...
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: [cancerblack] on Feb 07, 2021, 07:50:29 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 05:33:43 AM
That's fine.  I've already found more than I could have ever hoped for.

https://web.archive.org/web/20030318223143/http://forums.gamegossip.com/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20030318223143/http://forums.gamegossip.com/)

Observe
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 07:57:24 AM
Yeah, I've already made it through third version of the Caste/Cowl thread and now I'm enjoying the one entitled "The Aliens Are Not Insects Project (again)."

Mother of God...

QuoteCaste Theory = 1 Cowl-Loss Theory = 5

The results are before you ladies & gentlemen, make of them what you will.

:o
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Corporal Hicks on Feb 07, 2021, 08:04:50 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 03:59:51 AM

That's just because I'm lazy.  If you like, I can do it myself.  Is that what you really want?  ;)

This is reading way too much like "let's bully Xenomrph." Can you stop trying to antagonize him please.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Feb 07, 2021, 08:49:42 AM
Thread became mostly off-topic as well.  :P
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SiL on Feb 07, 2021, 08:59:09 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:48:50 AM
Indicating that he felt it was nonsense.
Indicating he thought it was small. He doesn't question it. Anything beyond that is projection. If they wanted to show he thought it was ludicrous there are much clearer ways.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Stitch on Feb 07, 2021, 12:39:40 PM
Quote from: SiL on Feb 07, 2021, 08:59:09 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:48:50 AM
Indicating that he felt it was nonsense.
Indicating he thought it was small. He doesn't question it. Anything beyond that is projection. If they wanted to show he thought it was ludicrous there are much clearer ways.
I'm inclined to agree. Like I think Kane was doing. 1200km is tiny.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 01:55:09 PM
Strange that what they land on doesn't seem tiny.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 02:20:07 PM
We've certainly given it more thought that any of the creators that's for sure lol.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 02:56:18 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 02:20:07 PM
We've certainly given it more thought that any of the creators that's for sure lol.
Well that's what fandoms are best at :P
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Kradan on Feb 07, 2021, 05:03:49 PM
Nitpicking and proud
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 05:39:08 PM
Quote from: Stitch on Feb 07, 2021, 12:39:40 PM
Quote from: SiL on Feb 07, 2021, 08:59:09 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:48:50 AM
Indicating that he felt it was nonsense.

Indicating he thought it was small. He doesn't question it. Anything beyond that is projection. If they wanted to show he thought it was ludicrous there are much clearer ways.

I'm inclined to agree. Like I think Kane was doing. 1200km is tiny.

Yeah, it's tiny, but not unusually so.  Enceladus, the sixth-largest moon of Saturn, is only ~500km.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 07:04:12 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 05:39:08 PM
Quote from: Stitch on Feb 07, 2021, 12:39:40 PM
Quote from: SiL on Feb 07, 2021, 08:59:09 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 03:48:50 AM
Indicating that he felt it was nonsense.

Indicating he thought it was small. He doesn't question it. Anything beyond that is projection. If they wanted to show he thought it was ludicrous there are much clearer ways.

I'm inclined to agree. Like I think Kane was doing. 1200km is tiny.

Yeah, it's tiny, but not unusually so.  Enceladus, the sixth-largest moon of Saturn, is only ~500km.
The problem isn't the size, it's its other properties if it's that small.
They land a starship the length of a football field on it, get out and walk around normally, and see that it's got an atmosphere.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 07:07:27 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 07:04:12 PM
The problem isn't the size, it's its other properties if it's that small.
They land a starship the length of a football field on it, get out and walk around normally, and see that it's got an atmosphere.

Atmosphere found on Enceladus (https://www.nature.com/news/2005/050314/full/050314-15.html)

QuoteAt just 500 kilometres across, the moon's gravity is insufficient to keep hold of the water vapour for long. This means that a strong flow of water must continually replenish the atmosphere, suggesting that Enceladus may be volcanically active or possess steamy geysers.

Sound familiar?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 07:54:03 PM
Slight difference between Enceladus' atmosphere and a breathable one. The bit you quoted even points out it can't hold the atmosphere, in opposition to what we see in the movies.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 08:03:46 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 07:54:03 PMSlight difference between Enceladus' atmosphere and a breathable one. The bit you quoted even points out it can't hold the atmosphere, in opposition to what we see in the movies.

It wasn't breathable until the company set up an atmosphere processor on it though.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 08:10:06 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 08:03:46 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 07:54:03 PMSlight difference between Enceladus' atmosphere and a breathable one. The bit you quoted even points out it can't hold the atmosphere, in opposition to what we see in the movies.

It wasn't breathable until the company set up an atmosphere processor on it though.
The point is that it shouldn't be able to hold it, atmosphere processor or not.
And it still had a dense atmosphere as we see in 'Alien', it's just not breathable.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 08:13:27 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 08:10:06 PM
The point is that it shouldn't be able to hold it, atmosphere processor or not.
And it still had a dense atmosphere as we see in 'Alien', it's just not breathable.

How did you determine its atmospheric density?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 08:14:45 PM
With my eyes, based on what we see in the movie.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 08:17:02 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 08:14:45 PM
With my eyes, based on what we see in the movie.

So no dialogue or anything, just your subjective analysis of the visuals?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:18:14 PM
I will say that when the Sulaco arrives above the planet, lv-426 appears to be far larger than 1200km, if we're including the sequel in this discussion that is.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 08:19:56 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:18:14 PM
I will say that when the Sulaco arrives above the planet, lv-426 appears to be far larger than 1200km, if we're including the sequel in this discussion that is.

Did the giant tape measure make an appearance in Aliens and I missed it?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:21:56 PM
Lol just saying that visually I get that impression  :laugh:
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 08:24:10 PM

Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 08:17:02 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 08:14:45 PM
With my eyes, based on what we see in the movie.

So no dialogue or anything, just your subjective analysis of the visuals?
Yeah, sure, if that's what you want to consider it lol

https://vimeo.com/13974940
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:30:43 PM
How big is Planet 4?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 08:39:23 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:30:43 PM
How big is Planet 4?
I don't believe we get a size for it (unless the RPG gives it, but I don't think it does), but based on what we see in the movie I'd go with "roughly earth-sized". According to Xenopedia it's got a higher average barometric pressure than Earth does.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 08:40:35 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:30:43 PM
How big is Planet 4?

2350 km
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 08:40:35 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:30:43 PM
How big is Planet 4?

2350 km
[Citation needed]


Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 05, 2021, 08:00:19 PM
The spores from Covenant are based in lifeforms you find in nature. In particular Lycoperdon Perlatum, a mushroom which is only edible while the meat is white (which is when it is young), But when the fungus is old it can no longer be eaten, its flesh turns brown and when pressed it releases spores as part of its life cycle.

(https://i.ibb.co/yhjV990/images.jpg)

(https://i.ibb.co/9w07L9T/a0u7ca3rui421.jpg)

(https://i.ibb.co/KNP0V9P/1024px-Pedo-de-lobo-Lycoperdon-perlatum-Hartelholz-M-nich-Alemania-2020-12-01-DD-245-299-FS.jpg)

(https://s2.gifyu.com/images/cfe885f7-3a50-4403-b477-e715e316f2e2.gif)

Also this is from way back on page 1 but I wanted to say this is super fascinating, I didn't know this was a real thing in nature. Thanks for posting it :)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: oduodu on Feb 07, 2021, 09:01:01 PM
from one of the deleted scenes from alien

here from https://youtu.be/AvUbqY1S-QQ

around 3:10

1200km

whether its 1200km to the planetoid circumference or diameter i dont know

BUT

thats the source i think. since it wasnt in the theatrical release i don't know if it counts for anything

oh sorry SM has the computer screen showing the  quadrants with the distances and that is in the theatrical cut so i guess that s the official in movie  canon source.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 09:12:20 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 08:40:35 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:30:43 PM
How big is Planet 4?

2350 km

[Citation needed]

WYR?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 09:14:20 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 09:12:20 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 08:40:35 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:30:43 PM
How big is Planet 4?

2350 km

[Citation needed]

WYR?
Alien Covenant didn't exist when the WYR was written.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 09:17:59 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 09:14:20 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 09:12:20 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 08:40:35 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:30:43 PM
How big is Planet 4?

2350 km

[Citation needed]

WYR?

Alien Covenant didn't exist when the WYR was written.

Giant tape measure?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: oduodu on Feb 07, 2021, 09:20:38 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Feb 05, 2021, 02:17:19 PM
Now as some folks may know, I do tend to be a bit nitpicky when it comes to some aspects of the franchises, namely the level realism and plausibility in them, which I found lacking in the recent entries.

One of the reasons why I prefer to see Resurrection as more of a parody than a true entry is because of more goofy parts in it, such as Ripley 8 being basically a super soldier.

Later entries like Prometheus and Covenent tended to increase the levels of the required suspense of disbelief as well, too grandiose in its display than keeping things plausible. Then the EU had telepathy and wacky hybrids.

Good or bad, Its all so far removed from how the first film started which was fairly grounded bar a few things. Which brings me to the point of this thread.

And that is that even the first film had scientific inaccuracies and other flaws.

So I would like y'all to list all the scientific errors within the first film and explain your why.

EDIT
I will put one out I am noticing now, though it could have an explanation I don't know.

Maybe this be could be due to repressurizing of the Nostromo atmosphere but there should not be any drafts or things blowing about if there is no air.

was the entire nostromo depreserised while the crew were in stasis? never knew that.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 09:35:19 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 09:17:59 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 09:14:20 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 09:12:20 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 08:40:35 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:30:43 PM
How big is Planet 4?

2350 km

[Citation needed]

WYR?

Alien Covenant didn't exist when the WYR was written.

Giant tape measure?
Could be, though I didn't see one. Maybe in one of the deleted scenes?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 09:37:00 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 09:12:20 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 08:40:35 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:30:43 PM
How big is Planet 4?

2350 km

[Citation needed]

WYR?

The film.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Kradan on Feb 07, 2021, 09:38:11 PM
What is WYR ?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 09:39:00 PM
Weyland-Yutani Report.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 09:39:26 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 09:37:00 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 09:12:20 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 08:40:35 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:30:43 PM
How big is Planet 4?

2350 km

[Citation needed]

WYR?

The film.
When?

Quote from: Kradan on Feb 07, 2021, 09:38:11 PM
What is WYR ?
The Weyland Yutani Report book.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 09:47:20 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 08:40:35 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:30:43 PM
How big is Planet 4?

2350 km

This series has a thing for small planets.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 09:49:48 PM
Big things start on small planets.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: kwisatz on Feb 07, 2021, 09:50:31 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 09:47:20 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 08:40:35 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:30:43 PM
How big is Planet 4?

2350 km

This series has a thing for small planets.

To compensate for the giant dicks.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: [cancerblack] on Feb 07, 2021, 09:50:56 PM

Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 09:49:48 PM
Big things start on small planets.

I've been snookered.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 09:52:42 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 09:39:26 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 09:37:00 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 09:12:20 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 08:40:35 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:30:43 PM
How big is Planet 4?

2350 km

[Citation needed]

WYR?

The film.

When?

I don't remember it either.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Kradan on Feb 07, 2021, 09:57:02 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 09:39:00 PM
Weyland-Yutani Report.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 09:39:26 PM
The Weyland Yutani Report book.

;)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 10:00:34 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on Feb 07, 2021, 09:50:31 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 09:47:20 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 08:40:35 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:30:43 PM
How big is Planet 4?

2350 km

This series has a thing for small planets.

To compensate for the giant dicks.
:D
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 10:16:03 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 09:52:42 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 09:39:26 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 09:37:00 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 09:12:20 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 08:41:46 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 07, 2021, 08:40:35 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 08:30:43 PM
How big is Planet 4?

2350 km

[Citation needed]

WYR?

The film.

When?

I don't remember it either.

Around 25 minutes in when Ricks identifies the planet. 

Covenant had a good tape measure.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 10:20:54 PM
Yep.  Zoom in and it's right there on the display.

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIxWhe3t.jpg&hash=2904b73346b85c09deeaf11bbe17b554b4eb64c9)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 10:22:25 PM
So scientifically speaking, is 2350 km just as impossible as 1200 km or is it a more reasonable size?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 10:25:31 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 10:22:25 PM
So scientifically speaking, is 2350 km just as impossible as 1200 km or is it a more reasonable size?
Still pretty darn impossible for a planet with an earth-like gravity and atmosphere. It's like 1/5 the size of Earth.

Edit— if the diameter in that screenshot is right, then the mass and density can't be right based on what we see in the movie.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 10:27:29 PM
After delving into it a little more, I think Xenomrph is exaggerating the impossibility of it.  A planet composed largely of osmium could be around the size of LV-426 and still have near-Earth gravity.

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/2315/how-small-can-a-planet-be-and-still-have-earth-like-gravity

Posit an even heavier element not found on Earth, but maybe in another star system and there you go.  As I recall, the novelization even makes mention of Dallas worrying that Parker and Brett would go venturing off in search of heavy metals.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 10:34:44 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 10:27:29 PM
After delving into it a little more, I think Xenomrph is exaggerating the impossibility of it.  A planet composed largely of osmium could be around the size of LV-426 and still have near-Earth gravity.

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/2315/how-small-can-a-planet-be-and-still-have-earth-like-gravity

Posit an even heavier element not found on Earth, but maybe in another star system and there you go.  As I recall, the novelization even makes mention of Dallas worrying that Parker and Brett would go venturing off in search of heavy metals.
The problem is it would need to be entirely made of this miracle element that doesn't exist naturally, and chemistry has a pretty good idea of what's possible. You wouldn't be able to mine it, it would be radioactively unstable, etc.

Not to mention, finding such a miracle element (let alone a stable planet entirely made of the stuff) would be the scientific find of the century on par with something like Solaris.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 10:38:24 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 10:25:31 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 10:22:25 PM
So scientifically speaking, is 2350 km just as impossible as 1200 km or is it a more reasonable size?

Still pretty darn impossible for a planet with an earth-like gravity and atmosphere. It's like 1/5 the size of Earth.

Edit— if the diameter in that screenshot is right, then the mass and density can't be right based on what we see in the movie.

I guess at some point it's really just a matter of how much disbelief you're willing to suspend for a movie about acid-bleeding space monsters.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 10:34:44 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 10:27:29 PM
After delving into it a little more, I think Xenomrph is exaggerating the impossibility of it.  A planet composed largely of osmium could be around the size of LV-426 and still have near-Earth gravity.

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/2315/how-small-can-a-planet-be-and-still-have-earth-like-gravity

Posit an even heavier element not found on Earth, but maybe in another star system and there you go.  As I recall, the novelization even makes mention of Dallas worrying that Parker and Brett would go venturing off in search of heavy metals.

The problem is it would need to be entirely made of this miracle element that doesn't exist naturally, and chemistry has a pretty good idea of what's possible. You wouldn't be able to mine it, it would be radioactively unstable, etc.

Not to mention, finding such a miracle element (let alone a stable planet entirely made of the stuff) would be the scientific find of the century on par with something like Solaris.

And maybe it was a big deal back when humanity first encountered such a planet.  For all we know, LV-426 may be the 50th one they've discovered since interstellar exploration began.

Maybe they're taken for granted in 2122, much like FTL.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 10:39:00 PM
Lol okay
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 11:36:16 PM
Well for whatever reason the writers of this series haven't considered the inherent issues with having such a small planet with gravity/atmosphere or they just don't care.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 11:37:18 PM
If you think that's bad, look at Star Wars.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Ilum
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: [cancerblack] on Feb 07, 2021, 11:39:32 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 07, 2021, 11:36:16 PM
they just don't care.

Nailed it.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 07, 2021, 11:43:11 PM
Maybe it's something like eezo from Mass Effect.

https://masseffect.fandom.com/wiki/Element_Zero
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 08, 2021, 12:05:13 AM
Dare I ask if we know the size of LV-223 or Fiorina 161?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 08, 2021, 12:17:18 AM
LV-223 is mentioned in WYR as 1400km.

Perry just used my timeline entry (https://alientimeline.wordpress.com/planets/) as a basis for what she wrote for Fiorina.  No size - just "small".
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 12:29:33 AM
Maybe any exoplanet worth mining is small and filled with heavy, exotic minerals.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 08, 2021, 12:31:40 AM
I guess there's really no point in getting worked up over the 1200km size of LV-426 if every planet in the series is impossibly small for the gravity.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 12:42:23 AM
Earth is 12742km & Planet 4 is 2350km. Both planets have the same gravity.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 12:51:36 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 08, 2021, 12:31:40 AMI guess there's really no point in getting worked up over the 1200km size of LV-426 if every planet in the series is impossibly small for the gravity.

It's hard for me to get worked up over "impossible planets" when modern astronomers keep finding them for real.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/forbidden-planets-understanding-alien-worlds-once-thought-impossible

Just imagine what other "impossible" things we'll consider passé only a hundred years from now.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 08, 2021, 12:55:39 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 12:42:23 AM
Earth is 12742km & Planet 4 is 2350km. Both planets have the same gravity.

Yeah that's been the topic of discussion for several pages.

Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 12:51:36 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 08, 2021, 12:31:40 AMI guess there's really no point in getting worked up over the 1200km size of LV-426 if every planet in the series is impossibly small for the gravity.

It's hard for me to get worked up over "impossible planets" when modern astronomers keep finding them for real.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/forbidden-planets-understanding-alien-worlds-once-thought-impossible

Just imagine what other "impossible" things we'll consider passé only a hundred years from now.

Good point
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 08, 2021, 12:58:45 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 12:42:23 AM
Earth is 12742km & Planet 4 is 2350km. Both planets have the same gravity.

Not really, but close enough.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 01:07:49 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 08, 2021, 12:31:40 AM
I guess there's really no point in getting worked up over the 1200km size of LV-426 if every planet in the series is impossibly small for the gravity.
To each their own. :) good thing it's not that small
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 08, 2021, 01:07:57 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 12:29:33 AM
Maybe any exoplanet worth mining is small and filled with heavy, exotic minerals.

You should copyright this theory
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 01:17:49 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 08, 2021, 12:55:39 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 12:42:23 AM
Earth is 12742km & Planet 4 is 2350km. Both planets have the same gravity.

Yeah that's been the topic of discussion for several pages.

Yup, now I see how the thread has grown in a few hours, just like the Alien  :laugh:

Quote from: SM on Feb 08, 2021, 12:58:45 AM
Not really, but close enough.

Oh all right.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 01:19:27 AM
Quote from: Trash Queen on Feb 08, 2021, 01:07:57 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 12:29:33 AM
Maybe any exoplanet worth mining is small and filled with heavy, exotic minerals.
You should copyright this theory

Good idea.  Alien Theory might be lurking.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 01:21:53 AM
Maybe if he uses your intellectual property in his videos,  you will be able to sue him and avenge the wiki editors once and for all. Be a hero!
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 08, 2021, 01:28:48 AM
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/7-22-2017/d99b6Q.gif)

Local Trouble hallucinates long MIA cowl believers.
Spoiler
As they too believed the skull must be overtaken and filled in, purifying the design.
[close]

Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 01:37:31 AM
Legends, all of them.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 02:42:27 AM
In space, no one can hear you scream ~

At least the tagline of the movie got it right  :laugh:

Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: FenGiddel on Feb 08, 2021, 06:21:44 AM
I wonder if it might be more along the lines that nobody hears you cuz nobody gives a sh*t.... It's such a downer of a universe.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 08, 2021, 01:02:50 PM
Nobody in power gives a shit, like the real world.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Omegamorph on Feb 08, 2021, 04:36:27 PM
movies as an art form employ visceral logic - not everything that happens on screen is 100% accurate to reality nor has to be, as long as it's not something absolutely ridiculous

movies cheat on reality all the time, in the subtlest of ways, and Alien et al are no exceptions
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 05:43:54 PM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 08, 2021, 04:36:27 PM
movies as an art form employ visceral logic - not everything that happens on screen is 100% accurate to reality nor has to be, as long as it's not something absolutely ridiculous

movies cheat on reality all the time, in the subtlest of ways, and Alien et al are no exceptions
This is especially true in 'Alien'.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 06:05:27 PM
Like the triple explosion at the end?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:12:38 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 06:05:27 PM
Like the triple explosion at the end?
Or Dallas saying the SpaceJockey is "fossilized", or that the facehugger bled "some kind of molecular acid", or pretty much anything the Alien does.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 06:23:40 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:12:38 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 06:05:27 PM
Like the triple explosion at the end?

Or Dallas saying the SpaceJockey is "fossilized", or that the facehugger bled "some kind of molecular acid", or pretty much anything the Alien does.

I can forgive some of that simply because he wasn't the ship's science officer.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:32:05 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 06:23:40 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:12:38 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 06:05:27 PM
Like the triple explosion at the end?

Or Dallas saying the SpaceJockey is "fossilized", or that the facehugger bled "some kind of molecular acid", or pretty much anything the Alien does.

I can forgive some of that simply because he wasn't the ship's science officer.
It's not that he's "wrong", it's audience shorthand. The Space Jockey isn't *literally* fossilized, but Dallas is conveying to the audience that it's "old". Likewise, all acids are molecular acids - Dallas is conveying to anyone in the audience who's a little slow on the uptake that it's a harmful liquid that you don't want spilling around in a spaceship, nevermind that the "acid" doesn't behave like a real acid (this is especially true in the later movies where it's potency and properties change depending on what the movie needs it to do).

The triple explosion is a good example though - it's conveying to the audience that it's not just a regular explosion, it's a super-mega sci-fi explosion with wild colors and multiple blasts, and it's a damn good thing Ripley got out of the blast radius.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Omegamorph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:44:58 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:32:05 PM
It's not that he's "wrong", it's audience shorthand. The Space Jockey isn't *literally* fossilized, but Dallas is conveying to the audience that it's "old".

thanks


SO MANY people don't get this and--

it's quite frustrating tbh
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 06:57:48 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:32:05 PMIt's not that he's "wrong", it's audience shorthand. The Space Jockey isn't *literally* fossilized, but Dallas is conveying to the audience that it's "old".

Wait a minute...

Are you insinuating that the Space Jockey and his ship full of eggs was already there before the events of Alien Covenant?  ???
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 07:01:36 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 06:57:48 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:32:05 PMIt's not that he's "wrong", it's audience shorthand. The Space Jockey isn't *literally* fossilized, but Dallas is conveying to the audience that it's "old".

Wait a minute...

Are you insinuating that the Space Jockey and his ship full of eggs was already there before the events of Alien Covenant?  ???
According to the first movie, it's "old". Whether that's a thousand years or a million years we don't know, but it's likely more than 20. :P
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 07:04:06 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 07:01:36 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 06:57:48 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:32:05 PMIt's not that he's "wrong", it's audience shorthand. The Space Jockey isn't *literally* fossilized, but Dallas is conveying to the audience that it's "old".

Wait a minute...

Are you insinuating that the Space Jockey and his ship full of eggs was already there before the events of Alien Covenant?  ???

According to the first movie, it's "old". Whether that's a thousand years or a million years we don't know, but it's likely more than 20. :P

Does time travel count as a scientific inaccuracy?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 07:09:46 PM
In what capacity?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 07:22:46 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 07:09:46 PM
In what capacity?

Taking David's creation to the distant past so they wind up on LV-426 in an ancient derelict spaceship.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 07:24:49 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 07:22:46 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 07:09:46 PM
In what capacity?

Taking David's creation to the distant past so they wind up on LV-426 in an ancient derelict spaceship.
That's kinda convoluted but I guess it works.

Edit— as a narrative device I imagine an average audience member would buy it, and I suspect a franchise fan might roll with it but say "what's this time travel doing in my Alien franchise?", but going by "hard sci-fi" I think time travel into the past is considered impossible.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 07:38:18 PM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:44:58 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:32:05 PM
It's not that he's "wrong", it's audience shorthand. The Space Jockey isn't *literally* fossilized, but Dallas is conveying to the audience that it's "old".

thanks


SO MANY people don't get this and--

it's quite frustrating tbh

Oh! How about accuracy between the movies itself. Fictional worlds have rules. The current retro-continuity (which is subject to change anyway), makes this "what the artist wanted to tell you 42 years ago" excuse somewat irrelevant. It can be changed in future for sure  :laugh:





Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 07:01:36 PM
According to the first movie, it's "old". Whether that's a thousand years or a million years we don't know, but it's likely more than 20. :P

It's likelly what you chose to belief, and that's fine  :)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 07:40:07 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 07:38:18 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 07:01:36 PM
According to the first movie, it's "old". Whether that's a thousand years or a million years we don't know, but it's likely more than 20. :P

It's likelly what you chose to belief, and that's fine  :)

:o
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 07:44:51 PM
;)

Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 07:24:49 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 07:22:46 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 07:09:46 PM
In what capacity?

Taking David's creation to the distant past so they wind up on LV-426 in an ancient derelict spaceship.
That's kinda convoluted but I guess it works.

Edit— as a narrative device I imagine an average audience member would buy it, and I suspect a franchise fan might roll with it but say "what's this time travel doing in my Alien franchise?", but going by "hard sci-fi" I think time travel into the past is considered impossible.

All this mental gymnastic it is all because you don't like the Alien as a modern creation. I understand you, anyway, because this direction upset people, including me  :)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 08, 2021, 07:58:19 PM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:44:58 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:32:05 PM
It's not that he's "wrong", it's audience shorthand. The Space Jockey isn't *literally* fossilized, but Dallas is conveying to the audience that it's "old".

thanks


SO MANY people don't get this and--

it's quite frustrating tbh

He thinks it's old.  He explicitly says this.

Other events suggest otherwise.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 08:00:04 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 08, 2021, 07:58:19 PM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:44:58 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:32:05 PM
It's not that he's "wrong", it's audience shorthand. The Space Jockey isn't *literally* fossilized, but Dallas is conveying to the audience that it's "old".

thanks


SO MANY people don't get this and--

it's quite frustrating tbh

He thinks it's old.
He's telling the audience and characters that it is old, there's a difference. :)


Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 07:44:51 PM
;)

Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 07:24:49 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 07:22:46 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 07:09:46 PM
In what capacity?

Taking David's creation to the distant past so they wind up on LV-426 in an ancient derelict spaceship.
That's kinda convoluted but I guess it works.

Edit— as a narrative device I imagine an average audience member would buy it, and I suspect a franchise fan might roll with it but say "what's this time travel doing in my Alien franchise?", but going by "hard sci-fi" I think time travel into the past is considered impossible.

All this mental gymnastic it is all because you don't like the Alien as a modern creation. I understand you, anyway, because this direction upset people, including me  :)
it also contradicts the first movie, as per above. ;)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Kradan on Feb 08, 2021, 08:23:15 PM
This thread gives me a headache  :o
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 08, 2021, 08:50:30 PM
It does not contradict anything actually.

Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 08:53:49 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 07:24:49 PMit also contradicts the first movie, as per above. ;)

I don't know if it's a contradiction, but it's certainly upsetting. >:(

Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: [cancerblack] on Feb 08, 2021, 09:20:56 PM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:44:58 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:32:05 PM
It's not that he's "wrong", it's audience shorthand. The Space Jockey isn't *literally* fossilized, but Dallas is conveying to the audience that it's "old".

thanks


SO MANY people don't get this and--

it's quite frustrating tbh

So many wasted hours trying to convince people of this on Facebook. Those podcast dudes being some prime offenders, from memory.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 09:22:09 PM
Quote from: Trash Queen on Feb 08, 2021, 08:50:30 PM
It does not contradict anything actually.


At the risk of detailing the thread, the "contradiction" is that the Alien is intended to be ancient in 'Alien' yet it's only 20 years old per Covenant.

A reminder that the most recent official Fox line is actually that we don't know how old the Alien is, the deliberate answer from Fox when content creators and writers have asked has been "no comment, don't touch the subject". Whether that changes under Disney is yet to be seen.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: windebieste on Feb 08, 2021, 09:25:16 PM
Aside from the cursory examination of the Space Jockey, forensics is not Dallas professional specialty. He's the Captain of the Nostromo and could easily be making an incorrect judgment call based on observations in the dark he knows nothing about. Dallas is also constantly wrong and making fundamentally bad decisions throughout the movie that lead to his demise. In this regard - his error of believing the Space Jockey is "old" comes into question.

So sure, he could be providing a narrative detail to the audience about the age of the SJ; but his comments may also be considered foreshadowing of further errors he makes later in the movie. Critical errors based on poor judgment calls. Foreshadowing is also a valid narrative device; and as we are seeing in recent movies by Scott, commonplace.

What's more, define "fossilised". Once you find a definition that actually fits the condition of the Space Jockey, you'll begin to appreciate how it could easily be less than ten years old. It could easily be a recent or young sample.

The derelict may have been on Acheron for thousands of years; or it may have been a more recent event. No one knows this detail just yet. Insisting it's one way or the other is based on data that can be easily misinterpreted - and renegotiated by any upcoming film maker. This is still a very flexible detail, not yet set in stone; but as recent movies are beginning to indicate, it's a recent crash. Ten to Twenty years old.

Ten or ten thousand years old. Take your pick. But if there's one thing I have learned regarding the recent movies, it's best to be prepared to leave expectations at the door when the next movie arrives and accept the outcome.


-Windebieste.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 09:41:57 PM
Quote from: windebieste on Feb 08, 2021, 09:25:16 PMSo sure, he could be providing a narrative detail to the audience about the age of the SJ; but his comments may also be considered foreshadowing of further errors he makes later in the movie. Critical errors based on poor judgment calls. Foreshadowing is also a valid narrative device; and as we are seeing in recent movies by Scott, commonplace.
This is an interesting idea and reading of the movie, although I don't agree with it - the intent for the Space Jockey at the time they were making the movie was that it was old. Thinking that Ridley had a master plan to demonstrate that Dallas actually has bad judgment is a bit too "revisionist history" for me.

QuoteWhat's more, define "fossilised". Once you find a definition that actually fits the condition of the Space Jockey, you'll begin to appreciate how it could easily be less than ten years old. It could easily be a recent or young sample.
Using a strict definition of "fossilized" kind of misses the point behind what is being said. Dallas is using shorthand to convey to the audience that it's old, and "fossilized" is an easy one-word way to do that which most people will instantly understand. Whether it's *literally* fossilized isn't the point.

QuoteThe derelict may have been on Acheron for thousands of years; or it may have been a more recent event. No one knows this detail just yet. Insisting it's one way or the other is based on data that can be easily misinterpreted - and renegotiated by any upcoming film maker. This is still a very flexible detail
This is a largely salient point though.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 08, 2021, 10:03:47 PM
I think regardless of what the writer/creators intent is with the Dallas line about fossilisation, the age of the Derelict is not explicitly defined with in the film itself so changing it doesn't seem unreasonable.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 08, 2021, 10:12:08 PM
Do you know what some people consider old?

X-Men (2000)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 08, 2021, 10:13:46 PM
21 years old... damn that film is old enough to drink already? Now I feel old
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 08, 2021, 10:17:38 PM
Almost my age. lol
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 10:23:58 PM
Quote from: Trash Queen on Feb 08, 2021, 10:12:08 PM
Do you know what some people consider old?

X-Men (2000)
That's a pretty disingenuous example of "old" and I think you know it. :P
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 08, 2021, 10:30:56 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 08, 2021, 10:03:47 PM
I think regardless of what the writer/creators intent is with the Dallas line about fossilisation, the age of the Derelict is not explicitly defined with in the film itself so changing it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Quite.

O'Bannon intended them to be old, but since it's never explicit in the film - it can be redefined.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 08, 2021, 10:40:36 PM
If someone died twenty years ago and I found their skeleton decaying on a leather chair in front of a computer, I'd consider that old.

And I might even assume it's an even older skeleton if it's in front of a ham radio, (older technology) it might be mummified, or ossified.

My first thought might even be the word fossilized even if that's not entirely accurate to the reality, but it gets across what I mean generally.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 10:40:53 PM
lol okay

That's some silly revisionist history right there, Dallas didn't think it was only 20 years old, and no sane person would use the word fossilized to describe a corpse they thought was 20 years old. Even using audience shorthand like "mummified" implies "thousands of years old", because your average audience member doesn't know mummies can be made very quickly under specially controlled conditions and using the word "mummified" implies "at least as old as ancient Egypt" in pop culture parlance. Using the word "fossilized" implies its even older.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 08, 2021, 10:43:10 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 07, 2021, 10:39:00 PM
Lol okay

Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 10:40:56 PM
lol okay

Apparently not.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 10:47:04 PM
The point is that your scenario would never happen in a movie with a sane screenwriter trying to communicate with his audience, or in real life with people who know what words mean. Even SM acknowledged that Dallas thought the Jockey was old as in "ancient", not old as in a teenager thinking in terms of movies his dad liked. Context matters.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 08, 2021, 10:54:45 PM
Yeah right.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 10:55:52 PM
It's not actually literally fossilized, but he's using the word to convey to the audience that it's ancient. That's the point.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 10:56:48 PM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia0.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2F9gXbS4IvpRlL5TOzYT%2Fgiphy.gif&hash=1620463409de594841cfc3399fd4a211b0c6020b)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 10:57:24 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 08, 2021, 10:30:56 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 08, 2021, 10:03:47 PM
I think regardless of what the writer/creators intent is with the Dallas line about fossilisation, the age of the Derelict is not explicitly defined with in the film itself so changing it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Quite.

O'Bannon intended them to be old, but since it's never explicit in the film - it can be redefined.

It's been 42 years since Alien, and now we can safely say that Dallas was contemplating a suit. That is a lot of water under the bridge :-X I was not even born!  :o

It may be old, or recent; Dallas may be right or he may be wrong.

Edit: And yes! I'm still upset  >:(
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 10:59:22 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 10:57:24 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 08, 2021, 10:30:56 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 08, 2021, 10:03:47 PM
I think regardless of what the writer/creators intent is with the Dallas line about fossilisation, the age of the Derelict is not explicitly defined with in the film itself so changing it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Quite.

O'Bannon intended them to be old, but since it's never explicit in the film - it can be redefined.

It's been 42 years since Alien, and now we can safely say that Dallas was contemplating a suit.
Was he, though? ;)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 08, 2021, 11:03:36 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 10:40:56 PM
And no sane person would use the word fossilized to describe a corpse they thought was 20 years old.

"EE-ER"
"Please try again."

You completely miss the point I'm making that people can and do refer to things with various degrees of accuracy based on their surroundings.

The surroundings looks ancient, so it leads Dallas to believe the skeleton ergo must be, even though it's clearly not fossilized to anyone with eyes.

Also by the way:
Quote
Timetable for human ossification:
18 to 23 years
Bone of the lower limbs and os coxae become completely ossified.

23 to 26 years
Bone of the sternum, clavicles, and vertebrae become completely ossified.

By 25 years:
Nearly all bones are completely ossified.

Either Dallas' scientifically illiterate or knowingly using an incorrect term as shorthand to the nearby crew.

Or the writer's using that term as shorthand to the audience as with most of Alien's expositional dialogue.

And so it's no more a reliable argument to use the word "fossilized" as proof it's old as it is to use the word "molecular" to bolster an argument about the strength of the Alien's acid.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 11:06:56 PM
He's using a shorthand term for both the characters and the audience to quickly indicate that it's ancient, yes. You aren't supposed to take him literally or infer his scientific background from it. The point isn't whether it's literally fossilized, or if Dallas is wrong due to a retcon from a later movie. The point is that 'Alien' intends the audience conclude it to be ancient, therefore it is. The mere fact he says it is sufficient to show the movie's intent.


Dallas is not set up to be an unreliable character, the audience is supposed to take what he says as gospel truth.

FULL DISCLOSURE— I'm conveniently ignoring Lambert's "1200km" line; she's equally meant to be a reliable character, and the intent *was* that LV426 be small (originally something like 120km, in fact).
Much like actual canon, head canon need not be internally consistent. ;)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 08, 2021, 11:14:26 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 11:06:56 PM
He's using a shorthand term for both the characters and the audience to quickly indicate that it's ancient, yes. You aren't supposed to take him literally or infer his scientific background from it. The point isn't whether it's literally fossilized, or if Dallas is wrong due to a retcon from a later movie. The point is that 'Alien' intends the audience conclude it to be ancient, therefore it is. The mere fact he says it is sufficient to show the movie's intent.


Dallas is not set up to be an unreliable character, the audience is supposed to take what he says as gospel truth.

We are?

I guess I missed that because of his never ending list of judgmental errors.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 11:15:32 PM
He's an expository mouthpiece, yes he's meant to be a reliable narrator. His judgment errors are independent of that. He speaks the truth as he sees it, and we are meant to accept his word as truth. That's basic storytelling.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 08, 2021, 11:19:56 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 11:15:32 PM
He's an expository mouthpiece, yes he's meant to be a reliable narrator. His judgment errors are independent of that. Likewise, Ash is an unreliable narrator, we should be questioning everything he says even if it turns out to be 100% true.

So lucky to have you here to explain the film to us.
And what way we are apparently "supposed" to take things.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SiL on Feb 08, 2021, 11:32:26 PM
No it's pretty obvious if they have a character look at something and say "hey it looks fossilized" and they make the thing he's looking at look decrepit, they want people to think it's old.

That can later be wrong, whatever, but acting like the makers of Alien wanted it to be vague or open to interpretation is fairly asinine.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 11:38:02 PM
Quote from: SiL on Feb 08, 2021, 11:32:26 PM
No it's pretty obvious if they have a character look at something and say "hey it looks fossilized" and they make the thing he's looking at look decrepit, they want people to think it's old.

That can later be wrong, whatever, but acting like the makers of Alien wanted it to be vague or open to interpretation is fairly asinine.
Bingo, exactly this.

I'm not saying people can't draw other conclusions or that later movies can't change things, I'm just saying that the intent in 'Alien' is clear.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 08, 2021, 11:38:24 PM
I have never once argued what the film's trying to convey though, I'm not acting like it's vague, I am saying it's open to interpretation because intent only takes you so far.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 08, 2021, 11:39:32 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 08, 2021, 10:03:47 PM
I think regardless of what the writer/creators intent is with the Dallas line about fossilisation, the age of the Derelict is not explicitly defined with in the film itself so changing it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 11:41:19 PM
Quote from: Trash Queen on Feb 08, 2021, 11:38:24 PM
I have never once argued what the film's trying to convey though, I'm not acting like it's vague, I am saying it's open to interpretation because intent only takes you so far.
In this particular instance I believe we will have to agree to disagree re: intent and it's usefulness.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 11:46:52 PM
I have a headache  :'(

(https://i.ibb.co/nnHjphJ/4x8wth.jpg)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 08, 2021, 11:46:58 PM
The author's dead and I killed him man... 

Just intent splattered everywhere.

Interpretation for me anyday.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 11:51:44 PM
I hope your headache goes away :( I get migraines, they suck
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 11:52:15 PM
Thank you  :)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 08, 2021, 11:54:28 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 10:57:24 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 08, 2021, 10:30:56 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 08, 2021, 10:03:47 PM
I think regardless of what the writer/creators intent is with the Dallas line about fossilisation, the age of the Derelict is not explicitly defined with in the film itself so changing it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Quite.

O'Bannon intended them to be old, but since it's never explicit in the film - it can be redefined.

It's been 42 years since Alien, and now we can safely say that Dallas was contemplating a suit. That is a lot of water under the bridge :-X I was not even born!  :o

It may be old, or recent; Dallas may be right or he may be wrong.

Edit: And yes! I'm still upset  >:(

That's what most threads like this revolve around.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: windebieste on Feb 09, 2021, 01:01:31 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 09:41:57 PM
Quote from: windebieste on Feb 08, 2021, 09:25:16 PMSo sure, he could be providing a narrative detail to the audience about the age of the SJ; but his comments may also be considered foreshadowing of further errors he makes later in the movie. Critical errors based on poor judgment calls. Foreshadowing is also a valid narrative device; and as we are seeing in recent movies by Scott, commonplace.
This is an interesting idea and reading of the movie, although I don't agree with it - the intent for the Space Jockey at the time they were making the movie was that it was old. Thinking that Ridley had a master plan to demonstrate that Dallas actually has bad judgment is a bit too "revisionist history" for me.

QuoteWhat's more, define "fossilised". Once you find a definition that actually fits the condition of the Space Jockey, you'll begin to appreciate how it could easily be less than ten years old. It could easily be a recent or young sample.
Using a strict definition of "fossilized" kind of misses the point behind what is being said. Dallas is using shorthand to convey to the audience that it's old, and "fossilized" is an easy one-word way to do that which most people will instantly understand. Whether it's *literally* fossilized isn't the point.

QuoteThe derelict may have been on Acheron for thousands of years; or it may have been a more recent event. No one knows this detail just yet. Insisting it's one way or the other is based on data that can be easily misinterpreted - and renegotiated by any upcoming film maker. This is still a very flexible detail
This is a largely salient point though.

In a discussion about "scientific innaccuracies", basing empirical observation made by dialogue belonging to a fictional space captain of a fictional space tugboat regarding something he knows nothing about is outside any genuine scientific credibility.

It's not valid in this topic. It's an interesting point as a narrative device but it's not conclusive and certainly well outside of any scientific process.

On the other hand, desiccation and freezing are well documented means of natural specimen preserveation. As it is obvious the Space Jockey has never been buried, these are the only means of fossilisation that can be legitimately attributed to the SJ's condition. Permineralisation, castings and other lesser forms of fossilisation require the sample to be buried. This is clearly not the case with the SJ.

As such processes as desiccation and freezing can take a small amount of time on large samples, (elephants and rhinoceroses, for example) in this state they are dried out and preserved, it's perfectly feasible for the SJ to be less than twenty years old.

...or older. Pick a time frame anywhere between ten and ten thousand years. It's technically and scientifically possible - and a story written to accommodate and explain either is equally plausible.

On the other hand, what Dallas says is complete bullshit in terms of scientific observation. Sure, it can be used to support a narrative argument but in light of what this topic is about, it is 100% bereft of any scientific credibility.

-Windebieste.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 09, 2021, 01:08:32 AM
Dallas' dialogue isn't a "scientific inaccuracy" because we don't know that he means "literally fossilized", he could be using the same narrative shorthand to communicate with his crew that he feels the Derelict is old - whether it actually is or not. If we're going to nitpick the scientific merits of every line of dialogue then we'd be here all day (and it would be an exceedingly tedious exercise in missing the point). :P

If we're only talking about 'Alien', "fossilized" might be a scientifically inaccurate term but the movie definitely doesn't infer that it's young - that was the work of a separate movie (which doesn't feature the derelict or space jockey, mind).
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 09, 2021, 01:39:05 AM
Let me take this opportunity to declare the skull scientifically inaccurate on the grounds that I hate it. >:(
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 09, 2021, 01:52:17 AM
makes sense to me
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: [cancerblack] on Feb 09, 2021, 02:15:41 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 09, 2021, 01:39:05 AM
Let me take this opportunity to declare the skull scientifically inaccurate on the grounds that I hate it. >:(

Booooooo
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Huggs on Feb 09, 2021, 02:36:03 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 09, 2021, 01:39:05 AM
Let me take this opportunity to declare the skull scientifically inaccurate on the grounds that I hate it. >:(

Well you just better learn to love it, Mr. Man.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Feb 09, 2021, 02:36:58 AM
Bring back the skull I say!
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 09, 2021, 03:07:38 AM
Quote from: SM on Feb 08, 2021, 11:54:28 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 10:57:24 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 08, 2021, 10:30:56 PM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Feb 08, 2021, 10:03:47 PM
I think regardless of what the writer/creators intent is with the Dallas line about fossilisation, the age of the Derelict is not explicitly defined with in the film itself so changing it doesn't seem unreasonable.

Quite.

O'Bannon intended them to be old, but since it's never explicit in the film - it can be redefined.

It's been 42 years since Alien, and now we can safely say that Dallas was contemplating a suit. That is a lot of water under the bridge :-X I was not even born!  :o

It may be old, or recent; Dallas may be right or he may be wrong.

Edit: And yes! I'm still upset  >:(

That's what most threads like this revolve around.

When I'm upset, I visit the Egg on Sulaco thread to clear my mind and relax.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 09, 2021, 03:28:39 AM
You know what's very important when it comes to science?

Spoiler
Consensus.
[close]
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 09, 2021, 04:16:42 AM
Good thing this thread is about inaccuracies then
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 09, 2021, 04:40:52 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 09, 2021, 03:28:39 AM
You know what's very important when it comes to science?

Spoiler
Consensus.
[close]

Spoiler
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/2c2c0378c7e4fbc292a64bc3f0154a2b/tumblr_mvadqgHBoE1sxei5zo1_500.jpg)
[close]
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 09, 2021, 05:29:56 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 09, 2021, 04:16:42 AM
Good thing this thread is about inaccuracies then

If it's any consolation, I too hate what Covenant did to the Alien's origin (and what Prometheus did to the Space Jockey).  If there's any way of wiggling out of it, I'd be happy to see it.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 09, 2021, 05:33:47 AM
There's plenty of ways they could wiggle out of it.

They just haven't as yet.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 09, 2021, 05:42:46 AM
Have you already formulated your preferred method?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 09, 2021, 05:45:18 AM
Don't have one.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 09, 2021, 05:53:22 AM
Have there been any proposed methods that you would vehemently oppose?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 09, 2021, 09:16:08 AM
Really don't care.

I will judge their wiggling if they ever actually do it.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Kradan on Feb 09, 2021, 09:24:37 AM
Quote from: [cancerblack] on Feb 09, 2021, 02:15:41 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 09, 2021, 01:39:05 AM
Let me take this opportunity to declare the skull scientifically inaccurate on the grounds that I hate it. >:(

Booooooo


Booooooo yourself
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 09, 2021, 12:59:35 PM
Quote from: Kradan on Feb 09, 2021, 09:24:37 AM
Quote from: [cancerblack] on Feb 09, 2021, 02:15:41 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 09, 2021, 01:39:05 AM
Let me take this opportunity to declare the skull scientifically inaccurate on the grounds that I hate it. >:(

Booooooo


Booooooo yourself

(https://s2.gifyu.com/images/4xb4lt.gif)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 09, 2021, 02:45:35 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 09, 2021, 05:33:47 AM
There's plenty of ways they could wiggle out of it.

They just haven't as yet.
Well, Fox kinda already did.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 09, 2021, 05:24:56 PM
Quote from: SM on Feb 09, 2021, 09:16:08 AM
Really don't care.

I will judge their wiggling if they ever actually do it.

I predict involvement by the AvPR version of the PredAlien.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Whiskeybrewer on Feb 10, 2021, 11:41:05 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 09, 2021, 12:59:35 PM
Quote from: Kradan on Feb 09, 2021, 09:24:37 AM
Quote from: [cancerblack] on Feb 09, 2021, 02:15:41 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 09, 2021, 01:39:05 AM
Let me take this opportunity to declare the skull scientifically inaccurate on the grounds that I hate it. >:(

Booooooo


Booooooo yourself

(https://s2.gifyu.com/images/4xb4lt.gif)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Omegamorph on Feb 10, 2021, 12:15:35 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 07:38:18 PM
Oh! How about accuracy between the movies itself. Fictional worlds have rules. The current retro-continuity (which is subject to change anyway), makes this "what the artist wanted to tell you 42 years ago" excuse somewat irrelevant. It can be changed in future for sure  :laugh:
that's stylistic continuity which is another ballgame altogether
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Feb 12, 2021, 01:04:09 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 01:17:49 AM
Yup, now I see how the thread has grown in a few hours, just like the Alien  :laugh:

Yeah that is definitely one of the more unrealistic aspects, I mean they did mention the Alien taking food from storage in the novel or early script, but even with that, it would be unlikely for something that complex to grow that fast without burning out.

Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 08, 2021, 04:36:27 PM
movies as an art form employ visceral logic - not everything that happens on screen is 100% accurate to reality nor has to be, as long as it's not something absolutely ridiculous

movies cheat on reality all the time, in the subtlest of ways, and Alien et al are no exceptions

True and some more than others but Alien was fairly ok for what it was, it left some things ambiguous, it didn't explain cryo or its travel ability so there is nothing really to contradict if we ever do discover a way to safely induce stasis and achieve some form of reasonable space speed.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:12:38 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 06:05:27 PM
Like the triple explosion at the end?
Or Dallas saying the SpaceJockey is "fossilized", or that the facehugger bled "some kind of molecular acid", or pretty much anything the Alien does.

Bar the rapid growth speed and the sheer potency of its blood, the Alien isn't that implausible, its life-cycle is based on real life parasitoids and there are animals with double jaws.

@oduodu.
I would assume that during stasis, that the ship would be in conservative mode, so power and atmosphere would likely be low or absent as to not waste it.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: oduodu on Feb 12, 2021, 09:04:51 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Feb 12, 2021, 01:04:09 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 08, 2021, 01:17:49 AM
Yup, now I see how the thread has grown in a few hours, just like the Alien  :laugh:

Yeah that is definitely one of the more unrealistic aspects, I mean they did mention the Alien taking food from storage in the novel or early script, but even with that, it would be unlikely for something that complex to grow that fast without burning out.

Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 08, 2021, 04:36:27 PM
movies as an art form employ visceral logic - not everything that happens on screen is 100% accurate to reality nor has to be, as long as it's not something absolutely ridiculous

movies cheat on reality all the time, in the subtlest of ways, and Alien et al are no exceptions

True and some more than others but Alien was fairly ok for what it was, it left some things ambiguous, it didn't explain cryo or its travel ability so there is nothing really to contradict if we ever do discover a way to safely induce stasis and achieve some form of reasonable space speed.

Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 08, 2021, 06:12:38 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 08, 2021, 06:05:27 PM
Like the triple explosion at the end?
Or Dallas saying the SpaceJockey is "fossilized", or that the facehugger bled "some kind of molecular acid", or pretty much anything the Alien does.

Bar the rapid growth speed and the sheer potency of its blood, the Alien isn't that implausible, its life-cycle is based on real life parasitoids and there are animals with double jaws.

@oduodu.
I would assume that during stasis, that the ship would be in conservative mode, so power and atmosphere would likely be low or absent as to not waste it.

ok. nice point though.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: oduodu on Feb 15, 2021, 08:24:14 PM
i always wondered how a queen gets on a vtol aircraft probably weighing 2 3 tons and the android piloting the aircraft doesnt notice that the thrust had to significantly increase to compemsate for it.  to boot ot completely shifts the centre of gravity ro the back of tthe dropship.

oh sorry my bad that was aliens.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: windebieste on Feb 15, 2021, 09:16:59 PM
In terms of weight, the dropship would be expect to airlift the APC and return to the Sulaco if the mission had gone well. The APC would weigh more than than the Queen. So, it's really not an issue

Notwithstanding that, the dropship is fanciful at best. It breaks so many laws of physics, it sits just outside of Star Wars levels of daydream technology.

As a cinematic experience, it's a thrill ride and visually a cool and convincing looking vehicle. In the real world, however, the dropship is an engineering failure and would not function as depicted in the movie. It's just not possible.

-Windebieste.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 15, 2021, 09:36:00 PM
Yeah, I doubt Bishop bothered to load it with all the missiles and other ordnance that the first dropship had.  It would therefore be considerably lighter even with the queen, but even if Bishop noticed the weight change he may have figured it was just due to the rubble that the frontal landing gear yanked with it.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BigDaddyJohn on Feb 16, 2021, 11:40:45 AM
Quote from: oduodu on Feb 15, 2021, 08:24:14 PM
i always wondered how a queen gets on a vtol aircraft probably weighing 2 3 tons and the android piloting the aircraft doesnt notice that the thrust had to significantly increase to compemsate for it.  to boot ot completely shifts the centre of gravity ro the back of tthe dropship.

oh sorry my bad that was aliens.

All fair points above, also considering everything was exploding and going to shits around them at the time, he could have not noticed, his priority being getting the f**k out of here.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: oduodu on Feb 16, 2021, 08:07:21 PM
all fair points.

Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Omegamorph on Feb 23, 2021, 10:17:54 PM
golly people do you all really spend this much time and energy over pondering about certain details that are so far from the movies' intentions and soul as something possibly can?

It's one thing to argue about artistic merit, or relative artistic insertion or whatnot, another thing is arguing about scientific inaccuracies within art that doesn't bother being 100% scientifically accurate because -- hold on -- otherwise it would not exist

Alien, Aliens and whatnot are pieces of art, and specifically cinema. They don't employ real world rules all the time - quite in fact they go against them in more than one way, and this is true for literally every single piece of fiction that has ever been made, bar none
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SiL on Feb 23, 2021, 10:24:54 PM
... are you new here?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 23, 2021, 10:30:30 PM
Perfect time to found the scientifically accurate horror genre  :laugh:

But yeah, it's art and a fictional world that despite having similarities with the real world doesn't lose its imaginary world condition.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Omegamorph on Feb 23, 2021, 10:50:32 PM
Quote from: SiL on Feb 23, 2021, 10:24:54 PM
... are you new here?
hi im 12 and wuht is this?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: [cancerblack] on Feb 23, 2021, 10:58:45 PM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 23, 2021, 10:17:54 PM
golly people do you all really spend this much time and energy over pondering about certain details that are so far from the movies' intentions and soul as something possibly can?

It's one thing to argue about artistic merit, or relative artistic insertion or whatnot, another thing is arguing about scientific inaccuracies within art that doesn't bother being 100% scientifically accurate because -- hold on -- otherwise it would not exist

Alien, Aliens and whatnot are pieces of art, and specifically cinema. They don't employ real world rules all the time - quite in fact they go against them in more than one way, and this is true for literally every single piece of fiction that has ever been made, bar none

Quote from: [cancerblack] on Feb 05, 2021, 10:17:41 PM
I assume we're not going to bother with the FTL and magic gravity?

But everyone seems fine with these conceits.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Omegamorph on Feb 23, 2021, 11:02:01 PM
Quote from: [cancerblack] on Feb 23, 2021, 10:58:45 PM
But everyone seems fine with these conceits.
sound in space

biocompatibility with humans (pre-Prometheus, which is still 30+ years of people being fine with this...)

and so on and so forth
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 23, 2021, 11:17:51 PM
There's some paranormal activity going on in Alien 3.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Huggs on Feb 23, 2021, 11:34:53 PM
The solution was re-education.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 23, 2021, 11:40:24 PM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 23, 2021, 10:50:32 PM
Quote from: SiL on Feb 23, 2021, 10:24:54 PM
... are you new here?
hi im 12 and wuht is this?

(https://i.imgur.com/gxFXdwE.jpg)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Omegamorph on Feb 23, 2021, 11:45:15 PM
Quote from: Trash Queen on Feb 23, 2021, 11:40:24 PM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 23, 2021, 10:50:32 PM
Quote from: SiL on Feb 23, 2021, 10:24:54 PM
... are you new here?
hi im 12 and wuht is this?

(https://i.imgur.com/gxFXdwE.jpg)
I don't know if I wanna go 'awww' or puke, or both. 'Pukaaaawwwww'?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 23, 2021, 11:49:23 PM
I've never seen a crabator waifu before.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Huggs on Feb 24, 2021, 12:11:10 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 23, 2021, 11:49:23 PM
I've never seen a crabator waifu before.

You're just waiting for one in thigh-highs and a latex habit.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 24, 2021, 12:16:42 AM
I follow art / animation Youtube channels, and I can tell you there is nothing that cannot be turned into an attractive female / male character; animals, monsters, even inanimate objects.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Omegamorph on Feb 24, 2021, 12:25:38 AM
i mean it is fairly easy. Stick an attractive fe/male body on it, humanize the face (if not present, add a humanoid face) and voila
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 24, 2021, 12:29:54 AM
Quote from: Huggs on Feb 24, 2021, 12:11:10 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 23, 2021, 11:49:26 PM
I've never seen a crabator waifu before.

You're just waiting for one in thigh-highs and a latex habit.

(https://i.makeagif.com/media/2-24-2021/s80iQD.gif)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Huggs on Feb 24, 2021, 12:39:29 AM
And they act like alien abduction is such a negative experience.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 24, 2021, 12:39:52 AM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 24, 2021, 12:25:38 AM
i mean it is fairly easy. Stick an attractive fe/male body on it, humanize the face (if not present, add a humanoid face) and voila

Yup, and regardless the style (anime, western) they draw reference of what the mainstream culture define as attractiveness when it comes to human body. The better you're with human anatomy, the better is the quality of the piece.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Omegamorph on Feb 24, 2021, 12:42:06 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 24, 2021, 12:39:52 AM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 24, 2021, 12:25:38 AM
i mean it is fairly easy. Stick an attractive fe/male body on it, humanize the face (if not present, add a humanoid face) and voila

Yup. They draw reference of what the mainstream culture define as attractiveness when it comes to human body. The better you're with human anatomy, the better is the quality of the piece.
del toro literally went around asking the girl-side of his family "does this fishman ass look squeezable to you" while working on SoW
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 24, 2021, 12:43:56 AM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 24, 2021, 12:42:06 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 24, 2021, 12:39:52 AM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 24, 2021, 12:25:38 AM
i mean it is fairly easy. Stick an attractive fe/male body on it, humanize the face (if not present, add a humanoid face) and voila

Yup. They draw reference of what the mainstream culture define as attractiveness when it comes to human body. The better you're with human anatomy, the better is the quality of the piece.
del toro literally went around asking the girl-side of his family "does this fishman ass look squeezable to you" while working on SoW

LOL wut?  :laugh:

Edit: Did he win an Oscar for that one?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Omegamorph on Feb 24, 2021, 12:46:26 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 24, 2021, 12:43:56 AM
LOL wut?  :laugh:
part of the design process for the gill-man in "Shape of Water" was to make it look attractive - for obvious audience cue reasons - del toro felt that it had to have the absolute sexiest butt in order to achieve that feat
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 24, 2021, 01:00:03 AM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 24, 2021, 12:46:26 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 24, 2021, 12:43:56 AM
LOL wut?  :laugh:
part of the design process for the gill-man in "Shape of Water" was to make it look attractive - for obvious audience cue reasons - del toro felt that it had to have the absolute sexiest butt in order to achieve that feat

Fascinating. I didn't know about it until now. He had an interesting perspective, and he kinda reinvented the wheel with the black lagoon creature.

Edit: If only Ridley Scott had made a love story between a Space Jockey and a human :laugh:
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BigDaddyJohn on Feb 24, 2021, 10:31:30 AM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 24, 2021, 12:46:26 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 24, 2021, 12:43:56 AM
LOL wut?  :laugh:
part of the design process for the gill-man in "Shape of Water" was to make it look attractive - for obvious audience cue reasons - del toro felt that it had to have the absolute sexiest butt in order to achieve that feat

I wonder if Anderson did the same for Scar in Avp  :laugh:
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Omegamorph on Feb 24, 2021, 12:33:36 PM
Quote from: BigDaddyJohn on Feb 24, 2021, 10:31:30 AM
I wonder if Anderson did the same for Scar in Avp  :laugh:
he did want scar to look "handsome"
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BigDaddyJohn on Feb 24, 2021, 02:03:10 PM
I know  ;)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Feb 24, 2021, 02:03:41 PM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 23, 2021, 10:17:54 PM
golly people do you all really spend this much time and energy over pondering about certain details that are so far from the movies' intentions and soul as something possibly can?

It's one thing to argue about artistic merit, or relative artistic insertion or whatnot, another thing is arguing about scientific inaccuracies within art that doesn't bother being 100% scientifically accurate because -- hold on -- otherwise it would not exist

Alien, Aliens and whatnot are pieces of art, and specifically cinema. They don't employ real world rules all the time - quite in fact they go against them in more than one way, and this is true for literally every single piece of fiction that has ever been made, bar none

Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 23, 2021, 10:50:32 PM
Quote from: SiL on Feb 23, 2021, 10:24:54 PM
... are you new here?
hi im 12 and wuht is this?

Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 23, 2021, 11:45:15 PM
Quote from: Trash Queen on Feb 23, 2021, 11:40:24 PM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 23, 2021, 10:50:32 PM
Quote from: SiL on Feb 23, 2021, 10:24:54 PM
... are you new here?
hi im 12 and wuht is this?

(https://i.imgur.com/gxFXdwE.jpg)
I don't know if I wanna go 'awww' or puke, or both. 'Pukaaaawwwww'?

.......Riiiight

Anyway, back to topic.


Also to clarify for those who may think this is a nitpicking critic threads, its not. The pointing out of the scientific inaccuries of the first film is meant to be good natured here.
Of course a 1970s sci/fi is going to require suspensions of disbelief and it won't be perfect, it goes without saying really.
Alien was surprisingly fairly down to earth, especially compared to later entries, which is why I wanted to create this thread. It is easy to point out inaccuries in Covenant, Prometheus, Resurrection and the AVP movies and so on because of how over the top they are but you don't often see people pointing out things in the first film. I guess its made easier by the quality of the movies too.  :P

Alien did a few things right, the omission of how space travel and cryogenics work is a smart move, as there is nothing to despute if no infomation is there. As any information put forward would more than likely be contradicted or outright proven wrong by mankind's increasing understanding of the science of the world.

That being said, even without the mechanics being explained, cryo-stasis is pretty much out there since the only thing to survive freezing and being thawed was a frog I believe.

How would stasis work anyway?

In Alien, the sleepers had small round things attached to them, presumably to monitor life-signs, but if they are supposed to be in stasis then there should not be any life-signs as everything would suspended.

If its meant to simply be something that slows everything down to the point where aging and bodily needs are practically gone, then how safe or plausible would that be?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Omegamorph on Feb 24, 2021, 02:15:02 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Feb 24, 2021, 02:03:41 PM
.......Riiiight
you wanted to say something?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Feb 24, 2021, 02:19:23 PM
I did but I decided to go good faith and assume you didn't intend to offend.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Omegamorph on Feb 24, 2021, 02:23:24 PM
I didn't intend to offend, my friend

can still do without the pass-aggro

we're all friends here
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Feb 24, 2021, 02:34:04 PM
Come on you must have an opinion or something to point out about Alien.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Omegamorph on Feb 24, 2021, 02:53:18 PM
I really wish they edited Ripley adjusting Ash's head differently -- that's the biggest gripe I have about the movie. That cut is so jarring. But that's hardly to do with this topic, hah
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Feb 24, 2021, 02:59:41 PM
Well not too far off actually since during that scene we get a good look at what Ash's made up of and its kind of odd for an android, there is the milky stuff and those bulbs. So there is something that raises questions.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Feb 24, 2021, 03:01:48 PM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 24, 2021, 02:53:18 PM
I really wish they edited Ripley adjusting Ash's head differently -- that's the biggest gripe I have about the movie. That cut is so jarring. But that's hardly to do with this topic, hah

This, Ash in general does not hold up to scrutiny, and it sucks because whether it's his head or absence of anything below the waist area it's an easy editing cover up.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Feb 24, 2021, 03:04:49 PM
Yeah, Cameron fixed his mistake in the bluray version of Aliens. Funny enough that involved a broken android as well.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 24, 2021, 05:13:17 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Feb 24, 2021, 02:03:41 PMIt is easy to point out inaccuries in Covenant, Prometheus, Resurrection and the AVP movies and so on because of how over the top they are but you don't often see people pointing out things in the first film.

I'm eager to learn more about it. I mean, why such thing happen in the first place? Is it due to its status as a science fiction masterpiece? 
That is, a piece of art so well executed to the point that people ignore or are unable to notice flaws ??? (also confirmation bias) Or maybe it's because there isn't much to say really, since as you say, Alien was surprisingly fairly down to earth.

Quote from: The Cruentus on Feb 24, 2021, 02:03:41 PM
How would stasis work anyway?

In Alien, the sleepers had small round things attached to them, presumably to monitor life-signs, but if they are supposed to be in stasis then there should not be any life-signs as everything would suspended.

If its meant to simply be something that slows everything down to the point where aging and bodily needs are practically gone, then how safe or plausible would that be?

Doesn't that sound like dying for a long time and then being resurrected? 😱

Anyway I just find these definitions in the medical dictionary;

Quote from: Medical DictionarySuspended animation:

- A temporary suspension or cessation of the vital functions, with loss of consciousness.

- A temporary state of interrupted breathing and loss of consciousness resembling death, caused especially by asphyxia.

- A temporary state resembling death, with cessation of respiration; may also refer to certain forms of hibernation in animals or to endospore formation by some bacteria.

suspended animation

And apparently it is plausible 👀

Quote from: The GuardianKnown formally as emergency preservation and resuscitation, or EPR, the procedure is being trialled on people who sustain such catastrophic injuries that they are in danger of bleeding to death and who suffer a heart attack shortly before they can be treated. The patients, who are often victims of stabbings or shootings, would normally have less than a 5% chance of survival.

https://twitter.com/guardianscience/status/1197172128514109446

Quote from: Earth SkyThe European Space Agency (ESA) said on November 18, 2019, that its scientists have recently been investigating the process of placing astronauts into hibernation to cross the vastness of space. These scientists met at ESA's Concurrent Design Facility to assess the advantages of human hibernation for a trip to a neighboring planet, such as Mars. They took as their reference an existing study that described sending six humans to Mars and back on a five-year timescale. They studied how crew hibernation would impact space mission design, and put some numbers to known advantages to human hibernation for space travel, for example, that a smaller space capsule could be used if the crew were hibernating, rather than awake, for the months-long journey to Mars.

ESA studies human hibernation for space travel

Quote from: Astronomy MagGray mouse lemurs are more closely related to humans than mice. They also have the ability to hibernate, and researchers are hoping to learn how to transfer that ability to humans.

https://twitter.com/physorg_space/status/1338483892454645760
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Feb 24, 2021, 08:49:44 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Feb 24, 2021, 02:03:41 PM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 23, 2021, 10:17:54 PM
golly people do you all really spend this much time and energy over pondering about certain details that are so far from the movies' intentions and soul as something possibly can?

It's one thing to argue about artistic merit, or relative artistic insertion or whatnot, another thing is arguing about scientific inaccuracies within art that doesn't bother being 100% scientifically accurate because -- hold on -- otherwise it would not exist

Alien, Aliens and whatnot are pieces of art, and specifically cinema. They don't employ real world rules all the time - quite in fact they go against them in more than one way, and this is true for literally every single piece of fiction that has ever been made, bar none

Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 23, 2021, 10:50:32 PM
Quote from: SiL on Feb 23, 2021, 10:24:54 PM
... are you new here?
hi im 12 and wuht is this?

Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 23, 2021, 11:45:15 PM
Quote from: Trash Queen on Feb 23, 2021, 11:40:24 PM
Quote from: Omegamorph on Feb 23, 2021, 10:50:32 PM
Quote from: SiL on Feb 23, 2021, 10:24:54 PM
... are you new here?
hi im 12 and wuht is this?

(https://i.imgur.com/gxFXdwE.jpg)
I don't know if I wanna go 'awww' or puke, or both. 'Pukaaaawwwww'?

.......Riiiight

Anyway, back to topic.


Also to clarify for those who may think this is a nitpicking critic threads, its not. The pointing out of the scientific inaccuries of the first film is meant to be good natured here.
Of course a 1970s sci/fi is going to require suspensions of disbelief and it won't be perfect, it goes without saying really.
Alien was surprisingly fairly down to earth, especially compared to later entries, which is why I wanted to create this thread. It is easy to point out inaccuries in Covenant, Prometheus, Resurrection and the AVP movies and so on because of how over the top they are but you don't often see people pointing out things in the first film. I guess its made easier by the quality of the movies too.  :P

Alien did a few things right, the omission of how space travel and cryogenics work is a smart move, as there is nothing to despute if no infomation is there. As any information put forward would more than likely be contradicted or outright proven wrong by mankind's increasing understanding of the science of the world.

That being said, even without the mechanics being explained, cryo-stasis is pretty much out there since the only thing to survive freezing and being thawed was a frog I believe.

How would stasis work anyway?

In Alien, the sleepers had small round things attached to them, presumably to monitor life-signs, but if they are supposed to be in stasis then there should not be any life-signs as everything would suspended.

If its meant to simply be something that slows everything down to the point where aging and bodily needs are practically gone, then how safe or plausible would that be?

Completely since it's the future.

And it slows everything down, not stop it.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 24, 2021, 11:17:48 PM
The least plausible thing in the movie (although we know there is an artistic purpose behind it) is the Alien's growth rate. I suppose insects can do something similar, but the Alien is a vertebrate organism. In real life, the fastest growing vertebrate animal is a fish.

Quote from: Smithsonian MagSome animals live fast and die young. That means they need to grow up fast, too. This week, researchers crowned a new record holder for quick growth: Susan Milius at Science News reports that the turquoise killifish, Nothobranchius furzeri, found in Mozambique, can reach maturity in just 14 days, the fastest of any known vertebrate animal.

https://twitter.com/SmithsonianMag/status/1027207875473629184

Anyway in the same article they say  :laugh:

Quote from: Smithsonian MagSome animals live fast and die young. That means they need to grow up fast, too.

And since this was before the Cameron sequel, I still think the Alien went to die to the Narcissus.



There's even a song

Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Corporal Hicks on Feb 25, 2021, 08:43:04 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 24, 2021, 11:17:48 PM
And since this was before the Cameron sequel, I still think the Alien went to die to the Narcissus.

Well that was 100% one of the earliest intents of what it was doing. Not sure if that narrative was ever actually dropped and just not really communicated though?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Omegamorph on Feb 25, 2021, 09:57:41 AM
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Feb 25, 2021, 08:43:04 AM
Well that was 100% one of the earliest intents of what it was doing. Not sure if that narrative was ever actually dropped and just not really communicated though?
In some interviews it was even stated that the Alien was trying to revert back into an egg...

"I wanted the alien to continually change shape. When it appears in the machinery at the end, it could very well be dying, finishing there its very limited life cycle, maybe even metamorphosing into a chrysalis so that its physical volume decreases - so that it could return in the form of an egg and hibernate again."

Translated from l'Ecran Fantastique #11. Ridley Scott quote.
Courtesy of old wmm http://alienexplorations.blogspot.com/1979/10/life-cycle-of-alien.html
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Drukathi on Feb 25, 2021, 11:11:22 AM
It looked like he was just sleeping sweetly.
Not that he was experiencing loss of strength or coordination or other signs of imminent death. The alien did not even change outwardly - did not look falling apart or in the process of transformation.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Omegamorph on Feb 25, 2021, 12:02:54 PM
Quote from: Drukathi on Feb 25, 2021, 11:11:22 AM
It looked like he was just sleeping sweetly.
Not that he was experiencing loss of strength or coordination or other signs of imminent death. The alien did not even change outwardly - did not look falling apart or in the process of transformation.
agreed... the intention(s) were there, they just aren't sold in the scene. It's ambiguous enough... which allowed Cameron to make his Aliens older than the span Big Chap went thru
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: TC on Feb 25, 2021, 02:00:39 PM
In 1979 (1978 really), Scott was going to be influenced by either one of the two biggest space movies of the time: Star Wars or 2001. It always seemed to me he chose 2001.

The way Scott depicted spaceflight, particularly the Nostromo's departure from the refinery and descent from orbit - was very 2001ish. Not just the balletic movement and the music, but also the way the engines fire up only momentarily, to give the ship a forward impulse, and then quickly shut down again. Compare that with Star Wars where spaceflight requires engine nozzles lit up and firing constantly.

Cameron, too, noted this and had the Sulaco sweep past camera towards Acheron with its engines dark. You don't often see this in today's sci-fi movies. I guess lit up engines just look more exciting.

And also compare with Prometheus (2012) in which that ship also has constantly lit up engines while travelling through space. Hmmm. I think Scott felt in the intervening decades that audiences had gotten used to the Star Wars mode of space engine, and they would wonder how the Prometheus was able to fly through space with dead engines.  :(

And the sleep pods onboard the Nostromo were probably (in Scott's mind) like the hibernation devices from 2001 too. More cryogenic ("back to the old freezerinos") with slowed metabolic functions in the occupants, rather than outright stasis. Hence the sensor tabs.

TC
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Feb 28, 2021, 06:42:54 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 23, 2021, 11:17:51 PM
There's some paranormal activity going on in Alien 3.
....tell me more.

Quote from: SM on Feb 24, 2021, 08:49:44 PM
And it slows everything down, not stop it.
You could conceivably math out the rate it slows it down, too. :P

'Alien'-era stasis technology slows aging at a rate of 12.3% of normal, since Ripley (well, Sigourney Weaver) ages 7 years (1979-1986) for the 57 years she spends in cryo.

This method of mathing it out falls apart a little when you apply it to 'Alien3', though.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Feb 28, 2021, 08:21:03 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 28, 2021, 06:42:54 PM
This method of mathing it out falls apart a little when you apply it to 'Alien3', though.

More evidence that it was just a dream?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 28, 2021, 09:16:52 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 28, 2021, 06:42:54 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Feb 23, 2021, 11:17:51 PM
There's some paranormal activity going on in Alien 3.
....tell me more.

....It's an X file. I can't tell you more until we reach consensus.




Quote from: Local Trouble on Feb 28, 2021, 08:21:03 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Feb 28, 2021, 06:42:54 PM
This method of mathing it out falls apart a little when you apply it to 'Alien3', though.

More evidence that it was just a dream?

You wish it was a dream cos there is a skull.

(https://i.ibb.co/Qm99MdR/IMG-20210228-180354-916.jpg)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Huggs on Mar 01, 2021, 12:16:43 AM
Beautimus.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: [cancerblack] on Mar 01, 2021, 09:05:50 PM
The duct tape tho.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SiL on Mar 01, 2021, 09:59:18 PM
Really brings the whole thing together.

... I'll let myself out.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 01, 2021, 10:37:08 PM
Stay until we reach consensus.

Quote from: [cancerblack] on Mar 01, 2021, 09:05:50 PM
The duct tape tho.

Genetic memory my friend. You remember when Ripley merged her pulse rifle with a incinerator using duct tape  ??? Well the thing is the Queen saw that, and she inherited her last memories to the next offspring, which leads us to the obvious conclusion... 👆

....Alien 3 is not a dream ~

(https://s4.gifyu.com/images/gif-371501abf9f17124d.gif)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: oduodu on Mar 02, 2021, 11:57:24 PM
why da acid not disolving the speartip of the speargun after entering the alien's body?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: [cancerblack] on Mar 03, 2021, 12:17:01 AM
Quote from: oduodu on Mar 02, 2021, 11:57:24 PM
why da acid not disolving the speartip of the speargun after entering the alien's body?

Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Huggs on Mar 03, 2021, 12:21:50 AM
Quote from: oduodu on Mar 02, 2021, 11:57:24 PM
why da acid not disolving the speartip of the speargun after entering the alien's body?

Space age polymers.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 03, 2021, 12:23:46 AM
I don't remember if Sil or SM, but one of them knows the answer.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 03, 2021, 12:29:04 AM
Space wizard.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Mar 03, 2021, 01:20:42 AM
Quote from: oduodu on Mar 02, 2021, 11:57:24 PM
why da acid not disolving the speartip of the speargun after entering the alien's body?

It's made of Predator metals.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: [cancerblack] on Mar 03, 2021, 01:32:59 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 03, 2021, 01:20:42 AM
Quote from: oduodu on Mar 02, 2021, 11:57:24 PM
why da acid not disolving the speartip of the speargun after entering the alien's body?

It's made of Predator metals.

So when Yutani gets the Pred tech at the end of AvPR, they just use it to make space grappling hooks?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Mar 03, 2021, 01:40:50 AM
It has the dual virtue of explaining the grappling hook and canonizing AvPR.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Huggs on Mar 03, 2021, 01:44:59 AM
And their monopoly on styrofoam floors.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Mar 03, 2021, 08:06:37 PM
The grappling hook was a good thing to bring up actually, the acid should have melted through that fairly easily, especially when it previously it was shown to eat through a few decks. Maybe the adult's "blood" is less acidic.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 03, 2021, 08:32:31 PM
Or the acid reacts differently in vacuum.  Or the grappling hook isn't made of deck plates.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Mar 03, 2021, 08:36:09 PM
True, acid does have different reactions to different material that it is exposed to. In fact I wonder if it is only acidic once it is exposed to oxygen, otherwise we have to presume the amount of biological safeguards and functions the Alien has to not be consumed from within.

Ignoring later media, could we really call it an acid? there are many corrosive liquids out there that would probably more likely for what it is.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 03, 2021, 08:59:54 PM
I have been told be people who know more than me that the 'acid' in the films reacts to stuff that normal acids wouldn't.

But Bishop studied them and called it "molecular acid", so it'll do.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Mar 03, 2021, 09:03:34 PM
Yeah later media goes with the molecular acid thing.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SiL on Mar 03, 2021, 09:43:35 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 03, 2021, 08:59:54 PM
I have been told be people who know more than me that the 'acid' in the films reacts to stuff that normal acids wouldn't.
Glass is a big one, but interestingly only Ripley's blood in AR -
the Alien that got torn apart got blood on the glass of the holding cell but it didn't melt through.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Mar 03, 2021, 10:09:47 PM
They probably should have made the floor out of the same material as the window.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SiL on Mar 04, 2021, 12:08:35 AM
Capture them in glass cages of emotion.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Mar 04, 2021, 12:50:36 AM
Alien acid is way cooler than real acids. As a wee child I knew more about the Alien acid than the real stuff.  When I did learn more and witness real acid in action it was pretty underwhelming 😆
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Mar 04, 2021, 10:49:08 AM
It is why I wonder if it is actually acid, there is lots of corrosive liquid for more dangerous than acid.
Also its Dallas who calls it molecular acid and given his error on the space jockey, he isn't the most reliable one there, especially since it come across as a guess anyway.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 04, 2021, 08:25:22 PM
Indeed.

Bishop, not so much.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Mar 04, 2021, 08:30:51 PM
If he was right about the blood, could that also mean he was right about the SJ?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 04, 2021, 08:37:11 PM
His claim of it being "dead a long time" is still fair.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Mar 04, 2021, 10:01:02 PM
Yeah it does leave room for Covenant. Not to be a broken record but I do hope that next Alien film changes that.  :laugh:



While obviously not fossilized, how old do you think the SJ actually looks? Is twenty years a fair amount of time?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 04, 2021, 10:30:45 PM
Sounds fair enough to me.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Mar 04, 2021, 11:05:51 PM
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Mar 07, 2021, 06:53:22 PM
Quote from: SiL on Mar 03, 2021, 09:43:35 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 03, 2021, 08:59:54 PM
I have been told be people who know more than me that the 'acid' in the films reacts to stuff that normal acids wouldn't.
Glass is a big one, but interestingly only Ripley's blood in AR -
the Alien that got torn apart got blood on the glass of the holding cell but it didn't melt through.
I honestly never noticed that.

It could be argued that it's a different kind of glass I guess?


Quote from: The Cruentus on Mar 04, 2021, 10:01:02 PM
While obviously not fossilized, how old do you think the SJ actually looks? Is twenty years a fair amount of time?
No one, and especially not the filmmakers, felt that way when the movie came out (or at any point until Covenant came out).
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Huggs on Mar 07, 2021, 11:25:40 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Mar 04, 2021, 10:01:02 PM


While obviously not fossilized, how old do you think the SJ actually looks? Is twenty years a fair amount of time?

At least as old as the body on lv223.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Its_Auto on Mar 14, 2021, 03:46:55 AM
- Xenomorph blood *doesnt* eat through glass. Alien blood oxidises and quickly becomes neutral, which is why both the dead and living facehuggers at Hadley's Hope were placed in water within glass tubes in medlab (in case of bleeding). Both Ripley and Newt's cryotubes confirm this in Alien 3 - visible cracks to glass, but burns only viable on the side metal. This tells us that helmets worn by the Nostromo and Prometheus crew are likely made from a very robust plastic (which makes sense - glass would be heavy when worn in gravity environments). And yes, I'm completely ignoring Ripley 8's blood.. Cause.. 'Resurrection' is poor fanfiction at best.

As for why the grappling gun doesn't melt when a Xenomorph was blasted out of the Narcissus airlock? It penetrated deep, and opened inside, sealing the wound from within - it probably was melting slowly within, though we have no *conclusive* evidence that Xeno blood 'burns' in a vacuum... The only time we *think* we saw it was the facehugger that melted Kanes helmet, though since Dallas, Lane and Lambert weren't carrying a lot of scientific equipment, it's entirely possible that the derelict had its own internal atmosphere just like the facility on LV-233 and they simply weren't aware.

On the subject of the Jockey: It was old.. Thousands of years old. David didn't create the xenomorph. David mimicked what the engineers had already done before him based on writing he found, though his was not the 'perfect organism'. David's creation was organic, and lacked a biomechanical exoskeleton. We see in Prometheus that the Engineers on LV-233 are augmented - the biomechanical exterior is part of their body, it is not a suit (the engineer that David awakes on the juggernaut from hypersleep is actually naked). They are different from those seen seeding life on Earth or like the people seen in Covenant.. So why is the XENO that bursts from Kane biomechanical? Simple:

In the derelict, Lambert asks "I wonder what happened to the rest of the crew". They find them.. Or rather Kane does. The eggs were morphed from engineers. Aliens take on genetic traits of hosts. Sooo... Biomechanical infused egg - human host = slightly diluted XENO (still has Biomechanical traits). This accounts for different exoskeletons in 'Aliens' - Russ Jordan pops a Biomechanical XENO, it eggmorphs a number on colonists.. So now it's derelict egg - human host - big chap - eggmorphed human - human host... Eventually a queen is born so same as above, then lays eggs - human host and repeat.. Diluting each time and mixing more human dna into the mix /less biomechical traits.. This is why the runner in alien 3 is completely organic. This is why David's creation is organic. A true XENO has the same Biomechanical traits as its engineer host creators.

How did the egg get on the sulaco?
-it wasn't Bishop (impossibility, eggs are sourced from sub level 3 of the atmosphere processor.. Exactly where Ripley was)
-it wasn't carried by the queen (we have Eyes, and can clearly see this)
-it wasn't an "emergency egg" (c'mon, we literally SEE undeveloped egg yolks pouring from within the egg sack when Ripley grenade launches it.. The eggs develop within the sack, not in the queen)
-nobody "put" it there.. A human would trigger it hatching and an android wouldn't position it upside down in the corner of a room
-it wasn't eggmorphed from Bishops legs (which, you know, were sucked into the vacuum of space).
-it wasn't a dream (that's just overused and lazy as f**k.. Plus Alien 3 is an underappreciated masterpiece).

Logical deduction: bundled with the fact we see the crew in, not only different shaped cryotubes, but a different cryochamber completely than what we see at end of Aliens (yes, I am well aware it was a directors choice, but we roll with what is seen), and the fact that the only way an egg (or cluster of eggs) could be positioned in such a fashion is by a XENO, the *only* logical choice is that there is a part of the story we have not seen yet, between Aliens and Alien 3. There is nothing in Alien 3 that would contradict such an event.. The nearest mention of past events is in the Assembly cut when Clemons tells Andrews that Ripley was part of a military operation that suffered losses (paraphrasing). That's it. Ripley also mentions to Clemons "I've been out here a long time" (of course, talking about her experience of Space in general, 57 years cryo, etc etc) but in the right context, it works.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: kwisatz on Mar 14, 2021, 03:55:05 AM
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=9.0 (https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=9.0)

Good luck!




(https://i.gifer.com/3IC5.gif)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 14, 2021, 08:21:09 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on Mar 14, 2021, 03:55:05 AM
https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=9.0 (https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=9.0)

Good luck!




(https://i.gifer.com/3IC5.gif)

:'(

(https://s4.gifyu.com/images/tenor-5d58a9ee0cb1cc2aa.gif)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 14, 2021, 10:27:20 PM
Quote-it wasn't eggmorphed from Bishops legs (which, you know, were sucked into the vacuum of space).

Not necessarily.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Master on Mar 14, 2021, 11:03:08 PM
Great thread! About A3 egg, I'd blame the Queen. She is capable of laying them, she had time to do it, egg looks underdeveloped and could have been relocated when dropship bay was decompressed.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: [cancerblack] on Mar 14, 2021, 11:31:35 PM
Quote from: Its_Auto on Mar 14, 2021, 03:46:55 AM
- Xenomorph blood *doesnt* eat through glass. Alien blood oxidises and quickly becomes neutral, which is why both the dead and living facehuggers at Hadley's Hope were placed in water within glass tubes in medlab (in case of bleeding). Both Ripley and Newt's cryotubes confirm this in Alien 3 - visible cracks to glass, but burns only viable on the side metal. This tells us that helmets worn by the Nostromo and Prometheus crew are likely made from a very robust plastic (which makes sense - glass would be heavy when worn in gravity environments). And yes, I'm completely ignoring Ripley 8's blood.. Cause.. 'Resurrection' is poor fanfiction at best.

As for why the grappling gun doesn't melt when a Xenomorph was blasted out of the Narcissus airlock? It penetrated deep, and opened inside, sealing the wound from within - it probably was melting slowly within, though we have no *conclusive* evidence that Xeno blood 'burns' in a vacuum... The only time we *think* we saw it was the facehugger that melted Kanes helmet, though since Dallas, Lane and Lambert weren't carrying a lot of scientific equipment, it's entirely possible that the derelict had its own internal atmosphere just like the facility on LV-233 and they simply weren't aware.

On the subject of the Jockey: It was old.. Thousands of years old. David didn't create the xenomorph. David mimicked what the engineers had already done before him based on writing he found, though his was not the 'perfect organism'. David's creation was organic, and lacked a biomechanical exoskeleton. We see in Prometheus that the Engineers on LV-233 are augmented - the biomechanical exterior is part of their body, it is not a suit (the engineer that David awakes on the juggernaut from hypersleep is actually naked). They are different from those seen seeding life on Earth or like the people seen in Covenant.. So why is the XENO that bursts from Kane biomechanical? Simple:

In the derelict, Lambert asks "I wonder what happened to the rest of the crew". They find them.. Or rather Kane does. The eggs were morphed from engineers. Aliens take on genetic traits of hosts. Sooo... Biomechanical infused egg - human host = slightly diluted XENO (still has Biomechanical traits). This accounts for different exoskeletons in 'Aliens' - Russ Jordan pops a Biomechanical XENO, it eggmorphs a number on colonists.. So now it's derelict egg - human host - big chap - eggmorphed human - human host... Eventually a queen is born so same as above, then lays eggs - human host and repeat.. Diluting each time and mixing more human dna into the mix /less biomechical traits.. This is why the runner in alien 3 is completely organic. This is why David's creation is organic. A true XENO has the same Biomechanical traits as its engineer host creators.

How did the egg get on the sulaco?
-it wasn't Bishop (impossibility, eggs are sourced from sub level 3 of the atmosphere processor.. Exactly where Ripley was)
-it wasn't carried by the queen (we have Eyes, and can clearly see this)
-it wasn't an "emergency egg" (c'mon, we literally SEE undeveloped egg yolks pouring from within the egg sack when Ripley grenade launches it.. The eggs develop within the sack, not in the queen)
-nobody "put" it there.. A human would trigger it hatching and an android wouldn't position it upside down in the corner of a room
-it wasn't eggmorphed from Bishops legs (which, you know, were sucked into the vacuum of space).
-it wasn't a dream (that's just overused and lazy as f**k.. Plus Alien 3 is an underappreciated masterpiece).

Logical deduction: bundled with the fact we see the crew in, not only different shaped cryotubes, but a different cryochamber completely than what we see at end of Aliens (yes, I am well aware it was a directors choice, but we roll with what is seen), and the fact that the only way an egg (or cluster of eggs) could be positioned in such a fashion is by a XENO, the *only* logical choice is that there is a part of the story we have not seen yet, between Aliens and Alien 3. There is nothing in Alien 3 that would contradict such an event.. The nearest mention of past events is in the Assembly cut when Clemons tells Andrews that Ripley was part of a military operation that suffered losses (paraphrasing). That's it. Ripley also mentions to Clemons "I've been out here a long time" (of course, talking about her experience of Space in general, 57 years cryo, etc etc) but in the right context, it works.

Interesting headcanon.

The only thing I'll nitpick at the minute is the (irrelevant) detail that LV-426 clearly had an atmosphere in Alien, it just wasn't breathable (for humans).
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Its_Auto on Mar 15, 2021, 12:16:14 AM
Quote from: [cancerblack] on Mar 14, 2021, 11:31:35 PM

Interesting headcanon.

The only thing I'll nitpick at the minute is the (irrelevant) detail that LV-426 clearly had an atmosphere in Alien, it just wasn't breathable (for humans).

That's a really good point that I overlooked! 😅
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Mar 15, 2021, 01:00:17 AM
That could be another reason it was selected for colonization.  Some planets have little or no atmosphere at all and could be unsuitable if terraforming requires something preexisting to work with.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Mar 15, 2021, 01:44:24 AM
You also overlook that the Runner's both biomechanical and organic not simply one or the other. It's closer to the Warrior and Drone than it is to David's Praetomorph Alien.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Mar 15, 2021, 02:19:38 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 14, 2021, 10:27:20 PM
Quote-it wasn't eggmorphed from Bishops legs (which, you know, were sucked into the vacuum of space).

Not necessarily.

They were still present in Colonial Marines, after all.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Mar 15, 2021, 02:24:30 AM
Me when Gearbox's ACM still exists
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Mar 15, 2021, 02:26:24 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 15, 2021, 02:19:38 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 14, 2021, 10:27:20 PM
Quote-it wasn't eggmorphed from Bishops legs (which, you know, were sucked into the vacuum of space).

Not necessarily.

They were still present in Colonial Marines, after all.

The Gibson script too.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Its_Auto on Mar 15, 2021, 03:08:38 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 15, 2021, 02:26:24 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 15, 2021, 02:19:38 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 14, 2021, 10:27:20 PM
Quote-it wasn't eggmorphed from Bishops legs (which, you know, were sucked into the vacuum of space).

Not necessarily.

They were still present in Colonial Marines, after all.

The Gibson script too.

LOL, both 'Colonial Marines' and the Gibson Script defies logic by having the legs there.. Unless they weigh more than the heavy cargo that was sucked from the launch bay with ease. But for arguments sake, let's just say they are there - the *fact* they are seen there means they didn't become an egg anyway. 😂😋
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 15, 2021, 03:10:28 AM
If the legs survived it's because they got caught on one of the dropship landing legs or something similar.  They were thrown towards the dropships starboard side and the loading lock was to its port.

Their position in A:CM is predictably stupid.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Mar 15, 2021, 03:36:58 AM
When I originally saw Aliens as a kid, I initially assumed that Ripley could have simply retrieved Bishop's lower body so he could reattach it to his torso.  He did, after all, retain control over his arms.

Besides, it's pretty obvious that Lance Henriksen's legs were wrapped in foil in this shot. 

(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSMGgeE8.jpg&hash=588c29d048ae9d890269a76cbb3f2f97a1e2e4e6)

A writer could easily say that he was able to repair himself before bedtime.  Maybe not back up to factory spec, but enough so he could walk again.

Given how Shaw was able to reattach David's head, I think it's even less outlandish now.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 15, 2021, 04:24:45 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 15, 2021, 03:36:58 AM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSMGgeE8.jpg&hash=588c29d048ae9d890269a76cbb3f2f97a1e2e4e6)

A writer could easily say that he was able to repair himself before bedtime.  Maybe not back up to factory spec, but enough so he could walk again.

Given how Shaw was able to reattach David's head, I think it's even less outlandish now.

Too bad it wasn't a Walter.

(https://s4.gifyu.com/images/gif3128231c41e96512.gif)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Predator@Alien on Mar 20, 2021, 10:03:59 PM
Hi !

I have some additional details about scientifc problems ^^

For the gravity of LV-426, as it was said, it's really impossible (if it's 1200 km).

We have a body which is 10 times smaller than the Earth. With a diameter 10 times smaller than the Earth, LV-426 would have a mass 1000 times less than the one of the Earth. Or gravity is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center. Therefore, the gravity on the surface of such a planetoid would be 10 times weaker. Eventually, for about 0.86 G, the density of LV-426 would have to be 8 times greater than that of the Earth. Or, the density of the Earth is already high enough (5.5) and there is no material that predicts such a difference. If the planetoid were made of platinum (21.4), we would have a density 4 times greater but not 10 times.

So it's really impossible what we see in the movie, again, if it's 1200 km ^^. Personaly I prefer 1200 km because I like the idea that it's a tiny object. Imagine that LV-426 is almost the size of the Earth ... It bothers me ^^

After, we have the FTL, so that of course is impossible.

And another thing that hasn't been mentioned yet : The system of propulsion of the Nostromo (with the refinery) which is not compatible with the center of gravity of the vessel. Such a vessel would turn on itself at the slightest impulse because the system of propulsion of the ship is not aligned with the center of gravity.

The perspectives with the planet with the moon are exaggerated, when we know that Calpamos is 306 400 km in diameter.

For the rest I'm not competent enough, only astronomical data ^^ I think that there are a lot of other problems but those are the most significant I think :)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 20, 2021, 10:07:45 PM
Do we know Calpamos is that size?

And if they can generate artificial gravity - it's they can move the centre of gravity.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Predator@Alien on Mar 20, 2021, 11:45:27 PM
The only source that I found on the size of Calpamos is in the Technical Manual. Failing to find better, I take this.

And yes of course, but it suppose that they can create an artificial gravity, which is also impossible ;D but you are right, if we admit they can, taking the problems separately, it's possible  :)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 21, 2021, 05:13:28 AM
The tech manual just put the gas giant at that size so it could have an Earth sized moon - which it changed from the original source material.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Predator@Alien on Mar 21, 2021, 10:07:26 AM
Okay, so we can assume that the visual is closer to reality in Prometheus. In Alien, we have a planet which seems too small next to its satellites. The distance of 1 790 000 km in the CMTM is realistic. So maybe it could work with the perspective, if we admit that we are really close to LV-426 we we see it... It's not really what we see in Alien...

SM, do you try to justify all of those errors or you think that the established laws of Alien are stronger than the laws of physics for a fictional world ?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Mar 21, 2021, 10:12:30 AM
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/UnrealisticDisastrousAlpaca-size_restricted.gif)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Drukathi on Mar 21, 2021, 10:44:54 AM
Nobody gives a shit. I still want to see my Antarctic space elevator.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SiL on Mar 21, 2021, 10:54:50 AM
The guy who painted the establishing shot of the planet and moons pretty much flat out said they knew what was shown was wrong but done for visuals over realism.

Jon Sorenson, one of the model team, would have more information. He has an account on the site.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Mar 21, 2021, 11:03:56 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 21, 2021, 05:13:28 AM
The tech manual just put the gas giant at that size so it could have an Earth sized moon
[Citation needed]
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Mar 21, 2021, 11:14:15 AM
Quote from: Drukathi on Mar 21, 2021, 10:44:54 AM
Nobody gives a shit. I still want to see my Antarctic space elevator.

(https://images.gr-assets.com/hostedimages/1516527767ra/24896452.gif)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 21, 2021, 12:10:44 PM
Quote from: Predator@Alien on Mar 21, 2021, 10:07:26 AM
Okay, so we can assume that the visual is closer to reality in Prometheus. In Alien, we have a planet which seems too small next to its satellites. The distance of 1 790 000 km in the CMTM is realistic. So maybe it could work with the perspective, if we admit that we are really close to LV-426 we we see it... It's not really what we see in Alien...

SM, do you try to justify all of those errors or you think that the established laws of Alien are stronger than the laws of physics for a fictional world ?

First and foremost - respect the source material as much as possible.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Mar 21, 2021, 04:11:50 PM
Slavish attention to "the source material" without acknowledgement of context or other factors is a bit short-sighted.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SiL on Mar 22, 2021, 01:18:18 AM
"As much as possible", not slavishly.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SpaceKase on Mar 23, 2021, 01:21:49 AM
And let us never forget, with its two hour rotation, Acheron only has an average 60 minutes of day and 60 minutes of night, so...

They mostly come out every other hour, mostly...
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 23, 2021, 01:31:28 AM
Depends on the position in its orbit.  The gas giant would provide a fair amount of 'daylight' when full.  It's only a slim crescent in the first flick.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Mar 23, 2021, 02:36:08 AM
Quote from: SiL on Mar 22, 2021, 01:18:18 AM
"As much as possible", not slavishly.
In this case, same difference apparently.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SpaceKase on Mar 23, 2021, 03:17:21 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 23, 2021, 01:31:28 AM
Depends on the position in its orbit.  The gas giant would provide a fair amount of 'daylight' when full.  It's only a slim crescent in the first flick.

Also depends on orbital tilt, of the moon and potentially of the planet making the Seasons of Calpamos a factor. Other factors inculde the eccentricity of those orbits, latitude of our heroes stomping grounds, and the moon's occlusion from Zeta 1 by the planet itself. But that all seemed a little wordy to drop in one go. Gotta love that wiggle room.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 23, 2021, 03:46:39 AM
And all that too.

Though I don't think Zeta 1 is really going to factor into anything.

Latitude appears to be the southern hemisphere.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Sabres21768 on Mar 23, 2021, 09:06:54 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 03, 2021, 12:23:46 AM
I don't remember if Sil or SM, but one of them knows the answer.
Funny enough, it was never expressly stated in the movie that the adult Alien had acid blood, only the facehugger.

That didn't happen until ALIENS.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SiL on Mar 23, 2021, 09:14:18 AM
It wasn't explicit in the final film, but was in the script.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Sabres21768 on Mar 23, 2021, 09:15:21 AM
Quote from: SiL on Mar 23, 2021, 09:14:18 AM
It wasn't explicit in the final film, but was in the script.
True, but still...
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Predator@Alien on Mar 23, 2021, 09:52:53 AM
And yes for the rotation, one more thing, LV-426 should look like the dwarf planet Haumea. With such a fast rotation, LV-426 should be flattened at the poles and bloated at the equator.

Zeta 1 is too far from Zeta 2 : 1,5 light-month. It look like to a very bright star from LV-426 but not really important compared to Zeta II and Calpamos.

Quote from: SM on Mar 23, 2021, 03:46:39 AM
Latitude appears to be the southern hemisphere.

Where did you find the source for this information ?
I imagine it's in the film okay, but precisely ?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 23, 2021, 11:55:33 AM
One of Ash's screens in the science blister.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 23, 2021, 02:57:59 PM
Quote from: Sabres21768 on Mar 23, 2021, 09:06:54 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 03, 2021, 12:23:46 AM
I don't remember if Sil or SM, but one of them knows the answer.
Funny enough, it was never expressly stated in the movie that the adult Alien had acid blood, only the facehugger.

That didn't happen until ALIENS.

Interesting though with the facehugger doing that no wonder they didn't shoot him
to the Alien to kill it.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Mar 23, 2021, 03:15:46 PM
Quote from: SiL on Mar 23, 2021, 09:14:18 AM
It wasn't explicit in the final film, but was in the script.
I'm just curious, where was it in the script? I know the intent was always there, it was the explanation for why they couldn't just shoot the (presumably adult) Alien.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SpaceKase on Mar 23, 2021, 04:51:43 PM
Quote from: Predator@Alien on Mar 23, 2021, 09:52:53 AM
And yes for the rotation, one more thing, LV-426 should look like the dwarf planet Haumea. With such a fast rotation, LV-426 should be flattened at the poles and bloated at the equator.

Zeta 1 is too far from Zeta 2 : 1,5 light-month. It look like to a very bright star from LV-426 but not really important compared to Zeta II and Calpamos.

Quite right, I mistyped, Zeta2 of course. And it's also worth noting that the name Calpamos appears nowhere in the canon.


Quote from: SM on Mar 23, 2021, 03:46:39 AM
And all that too.

Though I don't think Zeta 1 is really going to factor into anything.

Latitude appears to be the southern hemisphere.

Whether it's north or south isn't really as significant as how far it is from the equator or the pole and also the respective axial tilts of the moon and the planet. It's also worth noting that any prolonged period of darkness will be balanced out by a commensurately long period of brightness. And when the moon is between Zeta 2 and the planet you're getting lit, in one way or another, 2 hours a day, 84 days a week.
So we've sorta got a planet M6-117 from Pitch Black situation.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Mar 23, 2021, 08:08:56 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 23, 2021, 03:15:46 PM
Quote from: SiL on Mar 23, 2021, 09:14:18 AM
It wasn't explicit in the final film, but was in the script.
I'm just curious, where was it in the script? I know the intent was always there, it was the explanation for why they couldn't just shoot the (presumably adult) Alien.

Wasn't there a scene where the aliens tail was cut off and got acid everywhere?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 23, 2021, 08:18:49 PM
Yeah it lost an appendage in the deleted airlock sequence.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Mar 23, 2021, 08:38:46 PM
The name Calpamos appeared out of nowhere on the Xenopedia wiki, and then Colonial Marines used it in its supplemental materials, and then it started showing up all over the place. It's not sourced from a movie, but it is now the "official" name of Zeta 2 IV.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SpaceKase on Mar 23, 2021, 09:42:34 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 23, 2021, 08:38:46 PM
The name Calpamos appeared out of nowhere on the Xenopedia wiki, and then Colonial Marines used it in its supplemental materials, and then it started showing up all over the place. It's not sourced from a movie, but it is now the "official" name of Zeta 2 IV.

Well, if ACM used it then I know it's official!

Lol, I have no problems with it, clearly I love EU in all its wacky splendor.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 23, 2021, 10:39:24 PM
There was some debate about using it in the Weyland Yutani Report.  Insight liked the name so went with it.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 23, 2021, 11:51:49 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 23, 2021, 03:15:46 PM
Quote from: SiL on Mar 23, 2021, 09:14:18 AM
It wasn't explicit in the final film, but was in the script.
I'm just curious, where was it in the script? I know the intent was always there, it was the explanation for why they couldn't just shoot the (presumably adult) Alien.

Did they have firearms?  :o
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 24, 2021, 01:13:08 AM
That's the one.  Based on the grid pattern and the fact they're walking north-east - they landed in the southern hemisphere.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Predator@Alien on Mar 24, 2021, 01:51:37 AM
Sorry I deleted my message just before your post.

EDIT :
Quote from: SM on Mar 23, 2021, 11:55:33 AM
One of Ash's screens in the science blister.

You talk about that screen ?
If yes, what are the numbers do you see exactly ? I don't see anything

Quote from: SM on Mar 24, 2021, 01:13:08 AM
That's the one.  Based on the grid pattern and the fact they're walking north-east - they landed in the southern hemisphere.

Thank you ! But how can we asume that it's not northern hemisphere for example ? What say the grid ?
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 24, 2021, 02:01:07 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Mar 23, 2021, 08:08:56 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 23, 2021, 03:15:46 PM
Quote from: SiL on Mar 23, 2021, 09:14:18 AM
It wasn't explicit in the final film, but was in the script.
I'm just curious, where was it in the script? I know the intent was always there, it was the explanation for why they couldn't just shoot the (presumably adult) Alien.

Wasn't there a scene where the aliens tail was cut off and got acid everywhere?

(https://i.ibb.co/W28qYdb/52w3g9.jpg)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SM on Mar 24, 2021, 02:30:26 AM
QuoteThank you ! But how can we asume that it's not northern hemisphere for example ? What say the grid ?

The triangle is the derelict and the little dots are Dallas, Kane and Lambert.
The grid squares get smaller the closer you get to a pole and larger near the equator.
They're walking north east from the Nostromo.
They're walking from smaller squares towards larger ones.
Ipso facto.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Mar 24, 2021, 03:23:21 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 23, 2021, 11:51:49 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 23, 2021, 03:15:46 PM
Quote from: SiL on Mar 23, 2021, 09:14:18 AM
It wasn't explicit in the final film, but was in the script.
I'm just curious, where was it in the script? I know the intent was always there, it was the explanation for why they couldn't just shoot the (presumably adult) Alien.

Did they have firearms?  :o
Kane has a laser pistol, he unholsters it when he investigates the Alien egg before he gets nailed in the director's cut.


https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/RXF-M5_EVA_Pistol
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 24, 2021, 03:58:45 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 24, 2021, 03:23:21 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 23, 2021, 11:51:49 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 23, 2021, 03:15:46 PM
Quote from: SiL on Mar 23, 2021, 09:14:18 AM
It wasn't explicit in the final film, but was in the script.
I'm just curious, where was it in the script? I know the intent was always there, it was the explanation for why they couldn't just shoot the (presumably adult) Alien.

Did they have firearms?  :o
Kane has a laser pistol, he unholsters it when he investigates the Alien egg before he gets nailed in the director's cut.


https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/RXF-M5_EVA_Pistol

And I thought the Prometheus lasers were ahead of their time. :laugh:

But yisucrist  :o that thing looked like a Star Wars blaster. Thanks for the link. I can see it more clearly there, although it still looks like a space western pistol.  ^🐽^
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Mar 24, 2021, 04:02:36 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 24, 2021, 03:58:45 AM
But yisucrist  :o that thing looked like a Star Wars blaster.

That's because Star Wars used the same gun to make a similar looking blaster.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/SE-14C_blaster_pistol
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 24, 2021, 04:21:13 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 24, 2021, 04:02:36 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 24, 2021, 03:58:45 AM
But yisucrist  :o that thing looked like a Star Wars blaster.

That's because Star Wars used the same gun to make a similar looking blaster.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/SE-14C_blaster_pistol

Thanks for the extra info.  8)

EDIT~

They should release a Scott's cut where Kane shoots first. Big Chap is not born at all, but they return to Earth and the bonus situation gets out of control. ^🐽^

(https://i.ibb.co/G9LfWz2/movie-outland-sean-connery-wallpaper-preview.jpg)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Predator@Alien on Mar 24, 2021, 09:28:32 AM
Quote from: SM on Mar 24, 2021, 02:30:26 AM
QuoteThank you ! But how can we asume that it's not northern hemisphere for example ? What say the grid ?

The triangle is the derelict and the little dots are Dallas, Kane and Lambert.
The grid squares get smaller the closer you get to a pole and larger near the equator.
They're walking north east from the Nostromo.
They're walking from smaller squares towards larger ones.
Ipso facto.

Ah yes, well seen !
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: TNF on Mar 24, 2021, 01:50:46 PM
Quite a lot of info shown in such a short time on screen. It's an art.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Aug 28, 2021, 12:13:40 PM
I came across this in Aliens Fireteam Elite. It reminded me of the age old argument over the size of LV-426. I was pretty amused lol. :laugh:

(https://i.imgur.com/mFlhwrM.jpg)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Aug 28, 2021, 05:47:10 PM
Interesting lampshade.  It's like they've read our threads.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Drukathi on Aug 28, 2021, 06:28:59 PM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Aug 28, 2021, 05:47:10 PM
Interesting lampshade.  It's like they've read our threads.

Oh, look! Marines landing on unknown planet without any kind of bio protection. HoW aBoUt aLIeN ViRuSeS? ;D
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Xenomrph on Aug 29, 2021, 12:58:36 AM
Quote from: 426Buddy on Aug 28, 2021, 12:13:40 PM
I came across this in Aliens Fireteam Elite. It reminded me of the age old argument over the size of LV-426. I was pretty amused lol. :laugh:

(https://i.imgur.com/mFlhwrM.jpg)
Hahaha that owns.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Local Trouble on Aug 29, 2021, 01:16:09 AM
I wonder if they'll mention cowl vs. caste.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: 426Buddy on Aug 29, 2021, 01:21:07 AM
Well I think it's definitly caste in this game. :)
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Aug 29, 2021, 04:30:16 AM
Maybe they saw the Egg on Sulaco thread 🙊 OMG! Ohmy gosh! 🙈
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: markweatherill on Oct 04, 2021, 01:18:18 PM
Related to the amazing rate of growth of the creature is possibly the sheer amount of fluids that the thing loses.

Sometimes it's like a Beethoven sequel set in space!

Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Dec 27, 2021, 12:27:58 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 24, 2021, 04:21:13 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 24, 2021, 04:02:36 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 24, 2021, 03:58:45 AM
But yisucrist  :o that thing looked like a Star Wars blaster.

That's because Star Wars used the same gun to make a similar looking blaster.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/SE-14C_blaster_pistol

Thanks for the extra info.  8)

EDIT~

They should release a Scott's cut where Kane shoots first. Big Chap is not born at all, but they return to Earth and the bonus situation gets out of control. ^🐽^

(https://i.ibb.co/G9LfWz2/movie-outland-sean-connery-wallpaper-preview.jpg)

But then there would be a Miller situation where the other eggs would open, hope the gun doesn't overheat as much as the fireteam's counterpart does.  ;D

Speaking of the egg chamber, there is little proof for 100% certain but I think some of the eggs are dead, either due to stasis malfunction, age or cannibalism (drawing nutrients from each other)
its interesting to notice that not all the eggs around Kane open , he even outright falls on one. In Isolation, not all the eggs opened when there was three people wandering around them in close proximity. So I some of them might be dead, which is kind of cool as it grounds things down a bit.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: Immortan Jonesy on Dec 27, 2021, 08:05:04 PM
Quote from: The Cruentus on Dec 27, 2021, 12:27:58 PM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 24, 2021, 04:21:13 AM
Quote from: Local Trouble on Mar 24, 2021, 04:02:36 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 24, 2021, 03:58:45 AM
But yisucrist  :o that thing looked like a Star Wars blaster.

That's because Star Wars used the same gun to make a similar looking blaster.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/SE-14C_blaster_pistol

Thanks for the extra info.  8)

EDIT~

They should release a Scott's cut where Kane shoots first. Big Chap is not born at all, but they return to Earth and the bonus situation gets out of control. ^🐽^

(https://i.ibb.co/G9LfWz2/movie-outland-sean-connery-wallpaper-preview.jpg)

But then there would be a Miller situation where the other eggs would open, hope the gun doesn't overheat as much as the fireteam's counterpart does.  ;D

Speaking of the egg chamber, there is little proof for 100% certain but I think some of the eggs are dead, either due to stasis malfunction, age or cannibalism (drawing nutrients from each other)
its interesting to notice that not all the eggs around Kane open , he even outright falls on one. In Isolation, not all the eggs opened when there was three people wandering around them in close proximity. So I some of them might be dead, which is kind of cool as it grounds things down a bit.

Have you enjoyed Fireteam?

Edit - The dead egg theory is quite plausible.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Dec 27, 2021, 08:07:24 PM
Fireteam is brilliant, I was expecting another ACM but the game works for what it is. It just needs more content, which it will get if the road map is any indication.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: oduodu on Dec 30, 2021, 08:35:44 AM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 24, 2021, 03:23:21 AM
Quote from: Immortan Jonesy on Mar 23, 2021, 11:51:49 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Mar 23, 2021, 03:15:46 PM
Quote from: SiL on Mar 23, 2021, 09:14:18 AM
It wasn't explicit in the final film, but was in the script.
I'm just curious, where was it in the script? I know the intent was always there, it was the explanation for why they couldn't just shoot the (presumably adult) Alien.

Did they have firearms?  :o
Kane has a laser pistol, he unholsters it when he investigates the Alien egg before he gets nailed in the director's cut.


https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/RXF-M5_EVA_Pistol

didnt dallas say something to the tune "time to break out the guns"? dont know if it qas in the scripts or a deleted scene.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Dec 30, 2021, 10:54:24 AM
The weapons, and I believe it's in the "Director's Cut" Special Edition.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: oduodu on Dec 30, 2021, 11:49:37 AM
Quote from: BlueMarsalis79 on Dec 30, 2021, 10:54:24 AM
The weapons, and I believe it's in the "Director's Cut" Special Edition.

ok thanks. "weapons" then i assume man portable at least. 👍
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: SiL on Dec 30, 2021, 11:52:42 AM
Laser pistols.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BigDaddyJohn on Dec 30, 2021, 12:50:24 PM
We can see them pretty clearly in promotional images on some magazine, but I don't remember which one.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Cruentus on Dec 30, 2021, 12:54:52 PM
They did have weapons but they couldn't use anything that would cause the Alien to bleed. Dan O'Bannon has stated that its just an animal that can be killed like any other so they had to create a reason why the crew couldn't "just shoot it"
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: oduodu on Dec 30, 2021, 01:20:58 PM
👍👍👍
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: The Eighth Passenger on Dec 31, 2021, 04:48:24 PM
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imfdb.org%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F7%2F7a%2FAlien_Laser_Pistol.jpg%2F400px-Alien_Laser_Pistol.jpg&hash=191bdb36bdba785564b407a9d23d79254f7e3a3f)

You can see them in the theatrical cut as well, hanging off their spacesuit belts.
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: BlueMarsalis79 on Dec 31, 2021, 09:52:18 PM
Pew pew
Title: Re: Scientific inaccuracies in Alien
Post by: oduodu on Dec 31, 2021, 11:18:14 PM
buck Rogers had the best lazer pistol sounds. i wonder what sounds those made. if at all.