Scott: We are going to make another Alien movie

[The Old One]

If a future movie or comic or whatever wanted to have a Bull Alien with horns, I'd be totally okay with it.
The Alien in the first movie had a human skull while none of the others did.
Aliens don't have a set shape, any changes in designs are really easy to chalk up to "it's an Alien".

I wouldn't.
I'm fairly certain the Planet 4 Alien has a skull, as well as Kane's son.
No, I don't think so- for Aliens I believe any changes are due to an effort to better hide in the environment they create.
In A3 it's proportions, lack of back spines and posture are different because it was born from a animal host.

They all have human-like bodies and phallic heads, all of them have an androgynous and gaunt body.
Observably they take host traits, such as shape, speed, posture but altered and always have their own constants.
They do not take host defense mechanisms so far as we can tell,
from a design perspective you don't want to alter the head shape too much, keep the same basic silhouette.

[The Cruentus]

Yeah the Planet 4 version did have a skull, I think I remember it looking more differently though, namely the eye sockets.

[Local Trouble]

 

[Xenomrph]

Yeah the Planet 4 version did have a skull, I think I remember it looking more differently though, namely the eye sockets.

I'm not questioning if you're correct, but do you know of a specific moment or scene where you can see it, or if there's screenshots available? I never noticed a skull but that's pretty cool that it's there.

If a future movie or comic or whatever wanted to have a Bull Alien with horns, I'd be totally okay with it.

I wouldn't.

To each their own.

No, I don't think so- for Aliens I believe any changes are due to an effort to better hide in the environment they create.

There's a lot of problems with this (long standing) theory when you really start to break it down, mostly due to the age of the Aliens and the uniformity in their design.

They all have human-like bodies and phallic heads, all of them have an androgynous and gaunt body.

The ones in Resurrection didn't, they had digitigrade legs. From Resurrection onward is where the "logic" of the Alien design starts to fall apart - the ones in the first AvP movie are literally identical to the ones from Resurrection from the knees up, so any explanation of "human DNA mixing" to address the Resurrection ones goes right out the window. And the ones from AvP Requiem are identical to the ones from AvP from the neck down, but just like with 'Aliens', the "age" and "camouflage" explanations don't add up. And then you get to Covenant where the Alien is recognizably an Alien, but still really different.

And that doesn't even touch on the comics or video games, where Aliens get redesigned constantly - but they're still recognizably Aliens. For me, rather than trying to find a "logic" behind their varying appearances, it just makes sense to me to write it all off as "Aliens follow general guidelines, not hard rules".

from a design perspective you don't want to alter the head shape too much, keep the same basic silhouette.

I guess I don't mind changing things that much - even with the wacky Kenner figures, you can show just about any of them to pretty much anyone, even people who aren't huge Alien fans, and they're going to immediately say "oh hey, that's an Alien", and the figures have obvious design cues so you can immediately say "it's an Alien + a bull/gorilla/snake/rhino/whatever". Like yeah there's some exceptions (Killer Crab, Wild Boar, Scorpion) but even those are instantly recognizable as being a xenomorph, even if their host animal isn't as obvious.

Don't get me wrong, I get your complaint - people had the same problem with PredAliens having mandibles and dreadlocks, but personally I don't think slapping horns, dreadlocks, whatever on the head makes them any less of an Alien. I guess it's just a different threshold of what one believes "ruins" the Alien look - I'm 100% sure there are purists out there who think even the changes made in 'Aliens' ruin the design seen in the first movie.

[SM]

Yeah the Planet 4 version did have a skull, I think I remember it looking more differently though, namely the eye sockets.

Yep.

[Xenomrph]

Okay that's really cool. I guess I'm too used to the "not screen accurate merchandise version" that's all over the place; I don't think that one has a skull.

[The Old One]

I'm not going to quote your whole post Xeno, but I'll just say this; the ones in Resurrection are mutants.
& AVP, AVPR don't count in my book.

I also doubt there's a single good spin-off/book/game whatever that doesn't adhere to my outline.
That's  not to say there couldn't be a good one, but it's down to the mentality they approach the project with; For instance-
if giving the viewer a Zoo full of silly Alien variants is the primary goal of course everything else is going to fall by the wayside.

Digitgrade legs isn't that far of a departure from the design principles either, with Alien Isolation etc
I'd actually have no problem with the mandibles on a Predalien, it's only logical because if they inherit the skull from the host,
then reasonably they'd inherit the skull's structure- if not the individual then the species.
The dreadlocks are illogical, because whether from a human or animal;
the Alien always has the same basic head shape and structure in the enlogated portion.

[Xenomrph]

I'm not going to quote your whole post Xeno, but I'll just say this; the ones in Resurrection are mutants.
& AVP, AVPR don't count in my book.

To each their own.
But if the ones in Resurrection are mutants, what are they mutated with? If it's human DNA, where did the digitigrade legs come from?

I also doubt there's a single good spin-off/book/game whatever that doesn't adhere to my outline.
That's  not to say there couldn't be a good one, but it's down to the mentality they approach the project with; For instance-
if giving the viewer a Zoo full of silly Alien variants is the primary goal of course everything else is going to fall by the wayside.

I don't think that's necessarily true - there's a shitload of movies, books, comics, videogames, whatever, that have really "silly" premises but in their execution become interesting and compelling. NECA Toys has been redesigning the old Kenner designs and they look fantastic - the Mantis Alien, arguably one of the weirder Kenner concepts, looks downright scary in the redesign. I'd be absolutely okay seeing that thing in an Alien movie.

Digitgrade legs isn't that far of a departure from the design principles either, with Alien Isolation etc

My point is that it's a design change that doesn't have a "logical" explanation - because as long as the broad strokes are recognizably "Alien", the smaller details don't have to make sense.

I'd actually have no problem with the mandibles on a Predalien, it's only logical because if they inherit the skull from the host,
then reasonably they'd inherit the skull's structure- if not the individual then the species.

By that reasoning, why does the one in Alien3 have human teeth?

The dreadlocks are illogical, because whether from a human or animal;

Not necessarily - Predator dreadlocks aren't hair in the conventional mammalian sense. They bleed when cut, and you can see sockets for them in the Predator's skull.

the Alien always has the same basic head shape and structure in the enlogated portion.

I agree, and I don't think adding horns or ridges or whatever changes that.

[Corporal Hicks]

I'm not going to quote your whole post Xeno, but I'll just say this; the ones in Resurrection are mutants.
& AVP, AVPR don't count in my book.

To each their own.
But if the ones in Resurrection are mutants, what are they mutated with? If it's human DNA, where did the digitigrade legs come from?

Evidently. ADI has talked in the past about how the whole dna mix thing was taken into account when designing the Resurrection Aliens.

[The Old One]

The Queen's biological structure, she has digitigrade legs.
What's happened is crossover on an organismal level due to cloning.
Everything took traits from both Ripley 8 and the Queen she bore.


The Mantis Alien looks good for an action figure, it's Mantis abdomen looks ridiculous unfortunately.

Human and canine teeth, apart from the head structure aren't all that dissimilar, we all come from the mammalian family tree.

As for the Predator.
They have quils predominantly all over their body, more in age and thicker around the dredlocks.
They've never been shown to bleed in a film so that comic book rendition is speculative for the time being,
but considering what I just stated, I'd deem it unlikely that the dredlocks are anything other than a protein filament- whether they bleed or not.
.
As for design changes;
Ridges wouldn't change it if it's a constant but subtle feature. Especially since a suggestion of it had been there from the beginning.
Horns would be two protrusions, and would change that- take it from the concept artist.

[Xenomrph]

The Queen's biological structure, she has digitigrade legs.
What's happened is crossover on an organismal level due to cloning.
Everything took traits from both Ripley 8 and the Queen she bore.

Why would the Queen's anatomy affect the Alien's legs, when they don't for "non mutant" Aliens?
What about the ones from Alien Isolation, which are also digitigrade?

Human and canine teeth, apart from the head structure aren't all that dissimilar, we all come from the mammalian family tree

The point is that the "logic" to justify a Predator's mandibles doesn't hold true when you apply it to other Aliens in the movies - the way you're framing it, it's arbitrary whether an Alien takes the host's tooth structure or not. If it was logically consistent, the Alien3 Alien would have dog (or ox) teeth, and it doesn't.

The whole point of this exercise is to demonstrate that when Alien biology is concerned, "logic" isn't (and shouldn't be) the focus. That was one of the big themes behind the original movie - the Alien, as a creature, isn't supposed to "make sense". It's supposed to be weird and scary.

They've never been shown to bleed in a film so that comic book rendition is speculative for the time being,
but considering what I just stated, I'd deem it unlikely that the dredlocks are anything other than a protein filament- whether they bleed or not.

We see it bled in 'Predators'. Also as I said, the Predator's skull has actual sockets for the dreadlocks - that indicates that it's more than just "hair".

Horns would be two protrusions, and would change that- take it from the concept artist.

There are "design changes" across every Alien movie and beyond; it seems like an arbitrary standard that you can't add horns to the Alien head, but apparently mandibles are okay. What about the Queen? Its head is radically different in shape from a normal Alien?

Your criteria for what is "acceptable" or "logical" is really arbitrarily, but hey, that's what make them opinions. Everyone's got 'em, and that's what makes discussion interesting.

[The Old One]

It's just an attempt at an in-universe explanation for an arbitrary design change.
Because Number Eight, the Queen and all of her offspring are genetically impure.

Alien Isolation I'd say is simply a retcon of the first two films or a design change that isn't canon,
depends what way you look at it.

No, that's just not how biology works- especially from what we can see from the Alien.
I agree however that logic shouldn't be the focus, but you need guidelines.

I must be mistaken on the dreadlocks then, but I don't believe I saw such a thing in the Nimrod Antal film.

It's not always arbitrary for what you can't add and can, you just need to trust me on this one-
there's certain things you can do and they'll work and others won't.

The Queen is an exception because she's functionally, in universe and otherwise different from the adult Alien.

The adult Alien's head needs to remain phallic if you want a good Alien design.
Adding mandibles, changing the jaw structure or adding/removing lips doesn't change that.
Dredlocks, horns and protrusions of that nature do- that's why they don't belong.
There's other, better ways to include the idea of horns or dredlocks without just hot-gluing them onto the design.

[The Cruentus]

Yeah the Planet 4 version did have a skull, I think I remember it looking more differently though, namely the eye sockets.

I'm not questioning if you're correct, but do you know of a specific moment or scene where you can see it, or if there's screenshots available? I never noticed a skull but that's pretty cool that it's there.

SM showed one, but there are few other moments as well. The shower scene for example but it is harder to see on that one.

They all have human-like bodies and phallic heads, all of them have an androgynous and gaunt body.

The ones in Resurrection didn't, they had digitigrade legs. From Resurrection onward is where the "logic" of the Alien design starts to fall apart - the ones in the first AvP movie are literally identical to the ones from Resurrection from the knees up, so any explanation of "human DNA mixing" to address the Resurrection ones goes right out the window. And the ones from AvP Requiem are identical to the ones from AvP from the neck down, but just like with 'Aliens', the "age" and "camouflage" explanations don't add up. And then you get to Covenant where the Alien is recognizably an Alien, but still really different.

I'm not going to quote your whole post Xeno, but I'll just say this; the ones in Resurrection are mutants.
& AVP, AVPR don't count in my book.

AVP films had to reuse the suits due to budget issues I believe.

Digitgrade legs isn't that far of a departure from the design principles either, with Alien Isolation etc

I think that was because of animation issue, CA commented on it.

The Queen's biological structure, she has digitigrade legs.
What's happened is crossover on an organismal level due to cloning.
Everything took traits from both Ripley 8 and the Queen she bore.

I heard that explanation from someone else on here as well, I think it might have been SM.
It would mean that the mutation caused the Drones to have traits from the queen as well.

[SM]

Yeah I've been pushing that line for yonks.

[Local Trouble]

Here's a wild thought: might the queen at Hadley's have been a dogburster?  Surely the colonists had at least some pets.