Why does the Alien franchise need more freaky horror stuff rather than human

Started by acrediblesource, Apr 17, 2022, 12:17:47 AM

Author
Why does the Alien franchise need more freaky horror stuff rather than human (Read 4,578 times)

BlueMarsalis79

BlueMarsalis79

#30
I'd also say Call's "human passing" despite her guts not being an exact emulation, the fact androids have organic innards also's part of what makes them closer to human than most artificial intelligence in science fiction.

And whatever behavioural inhibitors Bishop had, he also had preferences independent of that in both films, that have no logical reason to exist from a ultilitarian perspective.

They have never ever functioned like "real life artificial intelligence" as we know it. In many ways much closer to human beings than computers.

Even if they are not identical, that's pretty much why, I think Ridley Scott uses the terms Android and Replicant entirely interchangably.

TC

It's a common thing to find a film review of Kubrick's 2001 in which the critic says the most human character in the movie is HAL 9000. Are they so dumb that they don't realise that HAL is an AI, only a bunch of inscrutable CCTV lenses and banks of computers? He doesn't even have arms or legs, how could he be considered human? But of course, they are talking about the way HAL has a mind resembling that of a human. In a story, that's all that matters.

It's a broader definition of the meaning of 'human'. It's why we have whole stories about characters that are rabbits living in the Berkshires of Southern England, characters that are white-tailed deer living in a forest, characters that are toys, characters that are cartoon flying elephants, and yet they can emotionally involve us in their lives and even bring us to tears. Why is that? How does that even work? It's because within the story these characters have the functionality of human minds, they are anthropomorphised with the same types of thoughts and feelings and emotions and motives and goals and desires that are familiar to us in our real life experiences with real live humans. It's not what they look like, it's their minds that count.

And so it is with the robots in the Alien films. As characters we relate to them as human, despite the fact that we know they are not literal humans.

For example, even after we know that Ash is a robot, because he is now a talking decapitated head, we still look for human nuance and hidden meaning in everything he says and the ways he says it, because to us, as a story character, he is still a human. We detect pride, resentment, grandiosity, and menace in his words - human qualities that we would expect from a human character in his position (were it logically possible, being a decapitated head n' all).

Bishop seems innocent and servile. But knowing he's an android means we are constantly suspicious of his motives, waiting for his true intentions to be revealed. We read his personality, his facial expressions, the way he delivers his dialogue, his behaviours, in order to mentally read his secret inner thoughts and feelings. Actually, everyone in the movie gets exactly this same treatment; whether they are human or robot or animated rabbit doesn't matter, as far as the storytelling is concerned, they are all functionally human.

Spoiler
Actually, we do this in every movie and TV show we ever watch, whether we realise it or not. In fact, we do this in real life, with every real life human we ever meet. We can't help it, our brains and our psychology evolved to do this automatically. If you want to learn more you can read this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Storytelling-Stories-Human-Better/dp/1419743031
[close]
James Cameron knew this. That's why Bishop is set up the way he is. We know about that early draft of Aliens (I think it's the scriptment) in which Bishop pilots the second dropship down to the colony in order to fly the survivors back to the safety of the Sulaco. But as he's about to touch down he radios Ripley and apologises for his programmed behavioural inhibitors that prohibit him from landing because to do so would endanger other human lives with the threat of Alien infection. And with that he flies away again, leaving them high and dry.

Clearly, Cameron thought better of this in the rewrite, but why? I can only guess, but I think he didn't like what that said about Bishop as an AI. In that version, Bishop had no free will, therefore no agency, and therefore was not human enough for Cameron's taste. Bishop is already clearly discriminated against as a mere android: remember the "That's right, Bishop should go!" scene? This is also the scene that shows Ripley's growing understanding of Bishop's true humanity. Look at her face when he volunteers to crawl to the uplink tower; it's one of respect and admiration, because she knows selfless altruism when she sees it. And what about Bishop's self-effacing explanation for volunteering? He says he has no desire to sacrifice himself, that the decision is one of logic, but Ripley, and we, know better. We didn't sneer at Bishop's bravery, thinking that he's just a machine performing a calculated decision. No, as I've explained, as an audience we treat every character that shows signs of a human mind as a fully fledged 'human', just as Cameron knew we would.

This scene, and the way Bishop shines through in the climactic ending, tells me that Cameron is saying that androids can be worthy people too. This is only a subplot and subtheme, however. It does not have primacy. But it is clearly an issue Cameron wanted to address - that of an AI or android's right to personhood. It shouldn't be much of a surprise, really; it's a common sci-fi theme.

I could go on about all the other androids in the Alien films, but shit, my posts do seem to drag on sometimes...

TC

[cancerblack]


SiL

Cameron didn't want to repeat the same evil robot twist, and gave Burke - a character completely absent in the treatment - the role of weasel instead.

Obviously the characters are anthropomorphised; they're androids. Obviously we see them as human; it's a trick of the brain.

But none of this is to say the franchise has overly occupied itself with deep philosophical musings about the nature of artificial intelligence and its repercussions the way Blade Runner does. That  was the initial claim.

Androids in the Alien franchise are explicitly programmable and programmed. Their free will, though convincing, is a sham, and the franchise doesn't try to hide this. When Ash is revealed, the crew are more mad with the Company - his programmers - than him, because he's revealed as a tool, doing what he was made to do.

You can't have artificial people without inviting people to think about what it means to be an artificial person, but the discourse is not, never has been (until recently) a primary or fundamental concern of the franchise. Androids are another alien element, not quite human, of dubious motive. They aren't used to make us question the nature of our existence, they're used to sow doubt and tension.

That's the difference. Blade Runner uses the Android for introspection, Alien historically used them to drive fear and uncertainty.

After all, even after Bishop's heroic climb through the tunnels, we still believe he left Ripley on the platform - because we've been conditioned to expect the android to pull some bullshit, not because we think he chose to, but because some distant puppet master programmed him to.

BlueMarsalis79

I agree excellently written post TC, I'd be more than happy to see it run on longer personally.

[cancerblack]

Quote from: SiL on May 15, 2022, 08:53:59 PMBut none of this is to say the franchise has overly occupied itself with deep philosophical musings about the nature of artificial intelligence and its repercussions the way Blade Runner does. That  was the initial claim.

Was it? I thought it was "Ridley personally sees synths and replicants as conceptually identical or near-identical, rightly or wrongly, and this colours at least 50% of the films thanks to his control and input"

SiL

SiL

#36
Quote from: BlueMarsalis79 on May 12, 2022, 05:14:19 PMYou have to accept that the androids and artificial intelligence are replicants in all but name in the Alien franchise, it's not just an emulation of humanity to Ridley Scott and pretty much everyone else to touch the series in any capacity, but an extension of humanity itself.
Yes, it was.

If they'd said what you did there would be no discussion.

BlueMarsalis79

Slight hyperbole. But still mostly true.

The actual initial claim being this:

Quote from: BlueMarsalis79 on May 12, 2022, 04:32:10 PMStop whining about how actual artificial intelligence functions please for the love of God, they always functioned as artificial humans ever since Alien's conception.

That I maintain they do and always have done themes be dammed.

[cancerblack]

Quote from: SiL on May 15, 2022, 09:27:43 PMYes, it was.

If they'd said what you did there would be no discussion.

In that case I'm still not so sure. I think the Cameron bot can be read either way so people will see what they want there, but Bishop wanting to be "euthanised" in 3 does raise questions that lead more towards depictions of humanity, and Call, despite her protestations that she's only programmed to care, does display a huge amount of emotion that to me feels intended to muddy that water - and being second gen, who knows tbh.

BlueMarsalis79

Obvious parallels between Call and Ripley's self loathing and confusion over their own nature and connection to humanity are obvious.

SiL

SiL

#40
Quote from: [cancerblack] on May 15, 2022, 09:47:32 PM
Quote from: SiL on May 15, 2022, 09:27:43 PMYes, it was.

If they'd said what you did there would be no discussion.

In that case I'm still not so sure. I think the Cameron bot can be read either way so people will see what they want there, but Bishop wanting to be "euthanised" in 3 does raise questions that lead more towards depictions of humanity, and Call, despite her protestations that she's only programmed to care, does display a huge amount of emotion that to me feels intended to muddy that water - and being second gen, who knows tbh.
Bishop and Call specifically say they're programmed to think and do certain things. They are, by their own admission, emulating humanity - emotions and preferences go with that. Them having strict programming and then complaining about it don't actually cancel out, it's part of the act.

The emotions are meant to make you second guess it, but we know it's all facade.

The replicants are pissed that their bodies will rot, not that they've been programmed to think a certain way. They aren't, they exhibit actual free will and agency. There's nothing like them until David.

But like I said earlier, Alien is closer to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, where Deckard concludes that even the explicitly electronic animals have some merit.

As for whether "most people" to touch the franchise treated androids as extensions of humanity rather than emulations, that's a numbers game. Sure, some people did.

But a lot more of them used completely artificial androids who were little more than humanoid slaves, or had explicitly programmed machines who by their own admission are only emulating humanity.

EDIT

I do agree that Xenomorphine's crusade to complain that they're not "realistic" is weird and wrong and that, even when they are explicitly emulating humanity, they're treated as much more human than you'd otherwise expect.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News