Okay, I've noticed a lot of people are up in arms over the idea that the Predalien (who appears to be a young queen as well) can produce chestbursters in human victims by vomiting in their face. Many are angered by this, and I must ask...why?
If you don't want to devote your time to reading my entire post, I'll sum it up. The addition of this new method of reproduction is no different than the additions made in Aliens and Alien 3, and like those additions, you will all accept this one over time whether you realize it now or not.
Now, as I was saying...why?
Yes, why? Why are you people so angry that something new was actually added? It's not like there's an entire encylopedia on Aliens. There are many things we don't know about them, just like how we knew next to nothing about the creature of the first Alien film. Viewers in 1979 had no idea that the creature had a hive mentality, or took orders from a monstrous queen, or took traits from it's host. No one.
But in time, those things were added (not always-been-there-secretly, ADDED) to the mythology of the creature. They could have easily made Alien 2 and did nothing new with the creature, and it still would have become the major franchise it is now. It didn't need a queen. Those eggs could have easily been layed by just another Alien. After all, most species here on Earth don't need a Queen to lay eggs, do they? Are ducks spawned from queen ducks? I didn't think so.
Yeah, so you can say "Well, that's not Alien enough. The Queen theory makes it more Alien." Do you have a brain? Can you read? Do you have ears or anything? Originally, the Alien was to turn people into the eggs. (And don't give me "they didn't know about it in '79" because they did. Just like how you know about deleted scenes for films just coming out, they did then, and they didn't need the internet.) How many creatures on Earth do you know that do that? Less than there are creatures that are spawned from Queens and work in hives. Believe it or not, people were actually pissed about that idea back in '86. Same goes for the hybridism theory, that they take the traits of their hosts, and that has since been accepted as well.
Every Alien film has introduced something new to the creature, whether large or small in nature. Aliens introduced the hive, and the queen. Alien 3 introduced hybridism. It could be argued that Alien Resurrection introduced the idea that Aliens are able to breathe under water, and are capable of choosing hive needs over individual needs (when they killed a comrade so they could escape). It could also be argued that the climate of the surrounding area could affect the rate of fertility (the embryo's grow faster in colder climates so they can quicker adapt to the cold).
Think about this for a second. Do you think it's just sheer coincidence that the most praised of the Alien films introduced the most radical additions to the creature? Aliens and Alien 3 (to a lesser extent) are held at a much higher standard than A:R and AvP, and they introduced two major additions to the way the creature works.
What I'm ultimately getting to, is that this new way of reproducing not only makes sense literally, but further Alienates the creatures that are supposed to be so Alien. First of all, who builds the Hive when the queen grows? And don't give me "Queens are born Queens" because it's never been shown how they grow. Just because it's got the signature crown as a chestburster doesn't mean it immediately becomes a queen. Also, who guards the Queen as she lays the initial eggs?
I know what you're thinking. "She has plenty of time to evolve as there usually isn't any people around until she's grown enough." If you are thinking that, you must not be that smart, because wherever there is an Alien, there are lifeforms that are able to support it's method of reproduction. Also, when not at it's final stage of development, it is surely vulnerable to it's surroundings (hard to believe given what we've seen, I know, but we're not Aliens).
Metaphorically, it makes the Aliens even more Alien, and emphasizes the sexuality of them, while at the same time further androgynizes them. The idea of vomiting seed into people's faces can easily be equated with (and let's be mature here) ejaculation of seed from a male to a female. It's very sexual in nature, and fully goes along with sexuality of the design of the creature by Giger, and I'm sure that it's an idea he would fully support.
You people who are so furious and bitter toward the Bros. Strause should start directing your anger toward James Cameron as well, because he did nothing different than they're doing here: introducing a totally new, unnecessary-yet-interesting concept to the creatures that we don't really know and love.
This is how I feel and I do not ask that anyone else feels this way.
