King Alien

[D. Compton Ambrose]

Oh God please no. The only way I could see a "King Alien" working is some psychopathic corporate businessman or politician wants to play god so he decides to inject himself with the Hivemother's Royal Jelly and it begins to mutate him - slowly and painfully - into a human/alien hybrid.

I'd prefer him look more human than Alien, however. Basically superhuman, the maniac basically becomes an uber-version of Ripley 8 on steroids.
It'd be cool if he was a 'Patrick Bateman' type character (maybe even played by him), his skin could turn gray, his hands and feet turn into talons, and his teeth elongate, so he has the trademark 'Alien smile'... but other than that he looks human and can control the Aliens or something.


....but beyond that, no 'King Alien'. The idea is so corny. Hell, even my idea is kind of corny.

[𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯]

I don't have any authority to ratify anything - just suggest and advise.

We know, but you've probably already forgotten more about the Alien franchise than most members on here will ever know. Or Fox for that matter.

That makes you the go-to guy. 

He posts on this board on occasion, doesn't he?

Yes, his user name is tyrannosaurusjones

[Xenomrph]

How do you feel about 'Alien3'?

I like it as a movie, but The Runner opened the floodgates for the idea that the alien changed with the host,

To be fair, the idea that the host influences the Alien is an idea that was present in the filmmakers' minds dating back to 'Alien' - both Ridley Scott and James Cameron talked about it in interviews (and both used the hypothetical example of the Alien popping out of Jones). Alien3 was just the first time we saw it explicitly shown to the audience, since it was the first time the Alien had come from a non-human host.

[Bughunter S. Thomson]

How do you feel about 'Alien3'?

I like it as a movie, but The Runner opened the floodgates for the idea that the alien changed with the host,

To be fair, the idea that the host influences the Alien is an idea that was present in the filmmakers' minds dating back to 'Alien' - both Ridley Scott and James Cameron talked about it in interviews (and both used the hypothetical example of the Alien popping out of Jones). Alien3 was just the first time we saw it explicitly shown to the audience, since it was the first time the Alien had come from a non-human host.

I did not know that. Huh.

[Xenomrph]

It introduces some interesting thematic elements when you think about it: if the dog-alien acted "feral" and "dog like" because it came from a dog, what does it say about humans when the human-born Big Chap in 'Alien' is a literal sexual predator and potentially rapes Lambert to death?

[426Buddy]

The families of Hadleys Hope made one big family 

[Local Trouble]

We don't necessarily know "the truth", we know approximations of it with varying degrees of certainty. Think of it like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Schroedinger's Cat, or quantum superposition - it allows seemingly contradictory information to coexist because elements of both may be true, even if they're seemingly mutually exclusive. Every source adds to a more complete picture of "the truth" even if certain details are seemingly contradictory.

A practical example:
How do you feel about the multiple versions of each of the Alien movies?

I think they're confusing.  They make my head hurt.  I guess I lack the capacity for doublethink.

To be fair, the idea that the host influences the Alien is an idea that was present in the filmmakers' minds dating back to 'Alien' - both Ridley Scott and James Cameron talked about it in interviews (and both used the hypothetical example of the Alien popping out of Jones). Alien3 was just the first time we saw it explicitly shown to the audience, since it was the first time the Alien had come from a non-human host.

If the runner had been designed according to Ridley's intentions, it should have had an elongated snout like a dog.  I'm actually glad it didn't because the head is the most iconic aspect of the alien and should remain as close to the original design as possible.  ADI and their "refinements" be damned.

It introduces some interesting thematic elements when you think about it: if the dog-alien acted "feral" and "dog like" because it came from a dog, what does it say about humans when the human-born Big Chap in 'Alien' is a literal sexual predator and potentially rapes Lambert to death?

It says that without the trappings of morality and civilization to restrain it, the alien is just as shockingly inhumane to us as we are to each other.  Then again, the intelligence level of the host shouldn't determine the alien's or cause it to act counter to its instincts because that would undermine its ability to reproduce.  That's why it was stupid for Fincher to decide that the runner killed simply to eat.

[genocyber]

Personally I had the idea that any drone alien could become a xenomorph if they were to live for a long enough time. An evolution if you will.

[Local Trouble]

Personally I had the idea that any drone alien could become a xenomorph if they were to live for a long enough time. An evolution if you will.

Conversely, I think it's more likely that a xenomorph could become a drone alien.

[Xenomrph]

I think they're confusing.  They make my head hurt.  I guess I lack the capacity for doublethink.

How is it doublethink?

And you see my point with multiple versions of the movies, I take it? Like, we don't even have to stray into the EU to have practical applications of "fuzzy continuity".

Another example that's slightly more EU-centric would be expanding the scope of 'Alien' to include both versions of the films, the script, the Illustrated Story adaptation, and the novelization. Nominally all of those things are depicting the same characters and series of events, even if they slightly differ on the finer details.

I'm actually glad it didn't because the head is the most iconic aspect of the alien and should remain as close to the original design as possible.  ADI and their "refinements" be damned.

I agree for the most part. I'm okay with changes as long as the general shape is still present. I think the idea that the Alien doesn't necessarily have One True Form is an interesting one.

It says that without the trappings of morality and civilization to restrain it, the alien is just as shockingly inhumane to us as we are to each other.

Pretty much, yeah.

Then again, the intelligence level of the host shouldn't determine the alien's or cause it to act counter to its instincts because that would undermine its ability to reproduce.  That's why it was stupid for Fincher to decide that the runner killed simply to eat.

What if the instinct was to protect the still-unborn Queen? That would lead directly to reproduction.
I mean yeah I get that the obvious answer is "why didn't the Runner just immobilize everyone for future implantation, that's more productive than a killing spree", but I'm willing to chalk it up to "literal alien intelligence we can't fathom".

A slight tangent, but the idea of Aliens taking host species' behaviors came up with regard to the Predalien in AvP Requiem, specifically the semi-deleted shots showing that the Predalien had skinned some of the Predators on the crashed ship. People pointed out that it seemed like a bizarre thing for the Predalien to do because it's not an instinctual behavior, but I considered the idea, "what if it IS instinctual?" I mean we even see the Wolf Predator do it when it might not be intellectually advantageous to do so, but if it's an instinctual thing that Predators just do as a callback to some kind of survival mechanism from when they were less evolved, then it makes a lot more sense. Like, by definition that's what instinct is. And if skinning victims is an instinctive behavior, and Aliens pick up instinctive behavioral traits, then suddenly it makes sense that the Predalien would do it.

I can totally get why people might not like having the Alien be influenced by host instincts, that it could "dilute" the Alien's behavior, but I personally think it makes them more interesting. Ash's line about "unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality" isn't saying the Alien is doing what *IT* wants to do without restraint, it's saying that the Alien acts as a dark mirror where it does what *YOU* want to do without restraint, even if you're unwilling to admit it or even recognize it.

[Local Trouble]

I think they're confusing.  They make my head hurt.  I guess I lack the capacity for doublethink.

How is it doublethink?

How is it not?  The runner either came from an ox or a dog.  You can't have it both ways without resorting to doublethink.

What if the instinct was to protect the still-unborn Queen? That would lead directly to reproduction.

Then why didn't it capture Ripley immediately after discovering that she was carrying a queen embryo and cocoon her until she popped?  Moreover, it's counter-productive to kill the only organisms on the planet that could serve as hosts for the queen's eggs.

If they wanted to emphasize that the runner was protecting the queen, I always thought it would have been cool to see it show up during the gang rape scene and slaughter Ripley's attackers.  Imagine seeing the alien as an unintentional anti-hero.

[Xenomrph]

How is it not?  The runner either came from an ox or a dog.  You can't have it both ways without resorting to doublethink.

Not necessarily, which is where fuzzy continuity comes into play. Did it come from an ox or a dog? We don't know, and we have ample evidence to believe either scenario despite being mutually exclusive, so the answer becomes "both". Is visible light a particle or a wave? Depending on how you're observing it, it can be one or the other despite those two things being mutually exclusive, so it ends up being both. Is Schroedinger's cat alive or dead? Until you observe it, the answer is "both".

"Fuzzy continuity" is just a philosophy for looking at fiction and worldbuilding - there's actually a couple franchises that officially ascribe to it. When asked about contradictions in Warhammer40k lore, Games Workshop basically said, "all sources are true, but not all sources are necessarily equally reliable, and we're not saying which are which. That's up to the individual reader to decide for themselves."
The main takeaway being that "strict continuity" is less important than 'interesting storytelling".
Incidentally it's also the way theologists explain contradictions in religious texts (you know, where the very concept of "canon" comes from ) - it's more important to pay attention to the individual stories and their messages than it is to fixate on whether everything fits together perfectly during a line-by-line analysis.

And at the end of the day it's all fiction anyway.

Then why didn't it capture Ripley immediately after discovering that she was carrying a queen embryo and cocoon her until she popped?  Moreover, it's counter-productive to kill the only organisms on the planet that could serve as hosts for the queen's eggs.

Like I said, I'd handwave it as "unpredictable, unfathomable alien intelligence". The Alien has been doing wacky stuff like that since 'Alien'; the Alien being unknowable and weird is one of the core tenets in the first movie, which is part of what makes it unpredictable and scary. From a storytelling perspective, it's why the Alien took out Parker and Lambert simultaneously when 'logic" said it should have gone after Ripley.
So when the Alien does stuff that doesn't "make sense" to human logic, I'm pretty forgiving of it.

If they wanted to emphasize that the runner was protecting the queen, I always thought it would have been cool to see it show up during the gang rape scene and slaughter Ripley's attackers.  Imagine seeing the alien as an unintentional anti-hero.

While I agree that would have been cool, it would have only worked if they reshuffled the order of events pretty significantly. When Ripley gets attacked by the inmates, she isn't even sure there's an Alien around yet. You'd almost have to use that scenario as the Alien's big reveal, because if you save it for after Ripley and the inmates know there's an Alien running around killing people, do you really think the prisoners are going to take the time to casually rape Ripley when there's an 8-foot-tall murder monster on the loose? And if you use it as the Alien's big reveal, it might be difficult to not tip the audience off too early that Ripley is carrying a Queen.

[Local Trouble]

Not necessarily, which is where fuzzy continuity comes into play. Did it come from an ox or a dog? We don't know, and we have ample evidence to believe either scenario despite being mutually exclusive, so the answer becomes "both". Is visible light a particle or a wave? Depending on how you're observing it, it can be one or the other despite those two things being mutually exclusive, so it ends up being both. Is Schroedinger's cat alive or dead? Until you observe it, the answer is "both".

I think I would hate that since I tend to prefer straight answers, especially in fiction.

Like I said, I'd handwave it as "unpredictable, unfathomable alien intelligence". The Alien has been doing wacky stuff like that since 'Alien'; the Alien being unknowable and weird is one of the core tenets in the first movie, which is part of what makes it unpredictable and scary. From a storytelling perspective, it's why the Alien took out Parker and Lambert simultaneously when 'logic" said it should have gone after Ripley.

Why would that have been more logical?

While I agree that would have been cool, it would have only worked if they reshuffled the order of events pretty significantly. When Ripley gets attacked by the inmates, she isn't even sure there's an Alien around yet. You'd almost have to use that scenario as the Alien's big reveal, because if you save it for after Ripley and the inmates know there's an Alien running around killing people, do you really think the prisoners are going to take the time to casually rape Ripley when there's an 8-foot-tall murder monster on the loose? And if you use it as the Alien's big reveal, it might be difficult to not tip the audience off too early that Ripley is carrying a Queen.

When it comes to Alien 3, I have no problem with reshuffling events if it resulted in a more interesting movie.  As it is, Alien 3 might be nice to look at, but it's so boring and devoid of suspense that it shouldn't even be considered horror.

[Xenomrph]

I think I would hate that since I tend to prefer straight answers, especially in fiction.

Fair enough.

Why would that have been more logical?

You mean attacking Ripley instead of Lambert/Parker? Attacking solitary targets is safer and easier, and seemed to be the Alien's "modus operandi" up to that point (Brett, then Dallas). From a storytelling perspective, the audience is supposed to assume Ripley is going to get picked off next given the pattern, and then the Alien does the unexpected and goes for Parker and Lambert at the same time.

[Local Trouble]

You mean attacking Ripley instead of Lambert/Parker? Attacking solitary targets is safer and easier, and seemed to be the Alien's "modus operandi" up to that point (Brett, then Dallas). From a storytelling perspective, the audience is supposed to assume Ripley is going to get picked off next given the pattern, and then the Alien does the unexpected and goes for Parker and Lambert at the same time.

Well, in the alien's defense, Brett and Dallas stumbled into its personal space.  And Lambert was making one hell of a racket with all those metal canisters.

In fact, the alien wasn't really all that aggressive in the first movie.  At least, no more so than a bear defending its cave.