User Information

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Poll

Which trio of films is better?

Prometheus, Alien Covenant and Alien
43 (55.8%)
Aliens, Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection
34 (44.2%)

Total Members Voted: 76

Author Topic: Which three Alien films would you rather watch in ...  (Read 7700 times)

judge death
Oct 18, 2020, 03:13:56 AM
Reply #150 on: Oct 18, 2020, 03:13:56 AM
Q
An unexpected benefit from the genetic crossing.
Wouldnt call it benefit as it resulted in flawed xenos that is one way ticket, maybe the ripley clone could be seen as a benefit but not for the company that spent millions on the project and she wasnt the goal.


bb-15
Oct 18, 2020, 03:21:22 AM
Reply #151 on: Oct 18, 2020, 03:21:22 AM
Q
The genetic manipulation in Resurrection wasn't intentional.

Maybe we both have a different interpretation of what genetic manipulation is? Certainly the genetic manipulation in “Prometheus” goes far beyond what was done in “Resurrection”.
But to me the efforts of the scientists in “Resurrection” to create a human/Xenomorph hybrid is based on genetic manipulation.
The Ripley clone with xeno traits in that film is the result of genetic manipulation imo.
Same with the Xenomorph queen who has a uterus and her odd looking offspring who is killed at the end of the movie. Again imo.

Clearly you think there is a difference with what the scientists were doing in AR compared with the Engineer tech in Pro.
Could you please tell me your POV.

;)


Nightmare Asylum
Oct 18, 2020, 03:59:00 AM
Reply #152 on: Oct 18, 2020, 03:59:00 AM
Q
The genetic manipulation in Resurrection wasn't intentional.

Maybe we both have a different interpretation of what genetic manipulation is? Certainly the genetic manipulation in “Prometheus” goes far beyond what was done in “Resurrection”.
But to me the efforts of the scientists in “Resurrection” to create a human/Xenomorph hybrid is based on genetic manipulation.
The Ripley clone with xeno traits in that film is the result of genetic manipulation imo.
Same with the Xenomorph queen who has a uterus and her odd looking offspring who is killed at the end of the movie. Again imo.

Clearly you think there is a difference with what the scientists were doing in AR compared with the Engineer tech in Pro.
Could you please tell me your POV.

;)

What the USM scientists achieved was absolutely genetic manipulation. But that wasn't intentional on their part. They intended to create a Ripley clone where the chestburster DNA was separate from the human DNA, so that they could retrieve the Queen for their experiments. What they wanted was a Queen - not a medley mixing the Queen and Ripley's DNA, hence them considering Ripleys 1-7 failures. On the surface it looked like they had finally achieved their desired goal on their eighth attempt, until Ripley 8, the Queen, and the Queen's offspring started displaying traits belonging to the opposite species.


bb-15
Oct 18, 2020, 05:14:04 AM
Reply #153 on: Oct 18, 2020, 05:14:04 AM
Q
The genetic manipulation in Resurrection wasn't intentional.

Maybe we both have a different interpretation of what genetic manipulation is? Certainly the genetic manipulation in “Prometheus” goes far beyond what was done in “Resurrection”.
But to me the efforts of the scientists in “Resurrection” to create a human/Xenomorph hybrid is based on genetic manipulation.
The Ripley clone with xeno traits in that film is the result of genetic manipulation imo.
Same with the Xenomorph queen who has a uterus and her odd looking offspring who is killed at the end of the movie. Again imo.

Clearly you think there is a difference with what the scientists were doing in AR compared with the Engineer tech in Pro.
Could you please tell me your POV.

;)

What the USM scientists achieved was absolutely genetic manipulation. But that wasn't intentional on their part. They intended to create a Ripley clone where the chestburster DNA was separate from the human DNA, so that they could retrieve the Queen for their experiments. What they wanted was a Queen - not a medley mixing the Queen and Ripley's DNA, hence them considering Ripleys 1-7 failures. On the surface it looked like they had finally achieved their desired goal on their eighth attempt, until Ripley 8, the Queen, and the Queen's offspring started displaying traits belonging to the opposite species.

First of all, you are correct that what I mentioned previously came by accident;
The Ripley clone with xeno traits in that film is the result of genetic manipulation imo.
Same with the Xenomorph queen who has a uterus and her odd looking offspring who is killed at the end of the movie.


However, that was not the only genetic manipulation which the scientists did in AR in my opinion.
What I am going to do is explain my point of view again in more detail.

* In AR there is a Ripley 8 clone which accidentally has become a human/Xenomorph hybrid.
Is the claim that this is the only genetic manipulation done by the scientists In AR?

* I’ll explain that more was going on imo.
- A scientist taking a blood sample and only using that to create a human clone, would require genetic manipulation as I understand it.
- In AR the Ripley blood sample contained both human DNA and Xenomorph queen DNA.
Keeping the Ripley DNA separate from the queen DNA required manipulation or handling of each kind of DNA.
- Also the failures of the previous Ripley clones, with their strange appearance, indicates that the scientists were trying to manipulate the DNA to get a certain result. To get the seemingly correct result, Ripley 8, required a manipulation of the DNA in a certain way.

Anyway, we are all basing our conclusions on the same information. Here is the beginning of the plot descriptions of AR from AVP Galaxy and AVP Fandom.

Quote
It is 200 years since Ellen Ripley died on Fiorina 161. Ripley’s former employers, The Weyland-Yutani Company has dissolved and now the United Systems Military has assumed the task of breeding and harnessing the deadly aliens. With blood samples taken from her previous life, scientists clone a new Ripley in order to extract the queen alien inside of her. The new Ripley, known as number 8, acquires physical and emotional traits from both humanity and the aliens, making her question where her allegiances lie.

https://www.avpgalaxy.net/alien-movies/alien-resurrection/

Quote
Some 200 years after the events on Fiorina "Fury" 161, military scientists on the research vessel Auriga successfully create a clone of Ellen Ripley, using DNA from blood samples taken before her death. They extract from her the embryonic Xenomorph Queen that had been growing inside her at the time of her death and raise it for study. As an afterthought, the Ripley clone, marked by a number "8" lasered onto her arm, is kept alive for further research. As a result of her DNA becoming mixed with that of the Xenomorphs during the imperfect cloning process, Ripley 8 is endowed with enhanced strength and reflexes, acidic blood, "inherited memories" from Ellen Ripley's past and an empathic link with the Xenomorphs, especially the Queen.
https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/Alien_Resurrection

;)

« Last Edit: Oct 18, 2020, 05:27:58 AM by bb-15 »

SM
Oct 18, 2020, 05:51:03 AM
Reply #154 on: Oct 18, 2020, 05:51:03 AM
Q
Or, to save a lot of faffing around, the genetic manipulation in Resurrection wasn't intentional.

They intended to clone Ripley and the Queen inside her.

Everything else was...
An unexpected benefit from the genetic crossing.


skhellter
Oct 18, 2020, 03:42:46 PM
Reply #155 on: Oct 18, 2020, 03:42:46 PM
Q
They intended to clone Ripley and the Queen inside her.

my pet theory is that the facehugger always changes the host's dna somewhat, with the goal of tricking the host's body into treating the resulting embryo like a new "organ", to prevent tissue rejection while the embryo develops.

with this, theoretically, you could do a "ripley 8" to anyone that was ever infected if you had their blood.


SM
Oct 18, 2020, 07:22:05 PM
Reply #156 on: Oct 18, 2020, 07:22:05 PM
Q
Yeah I've always liked that theory too.  Ripley seems to get better pretty quick on Fiorina.  She's supposed to be sick for a couple of weeks and her eye heals within hours.  Similarly Purvis has a chestburster pressing on his lung and he manages to hold his breath as long as everyone else.


bb-15
Oct 18, 2020, 07:34:16 PM
Reply #157 on: Oct 18, 2020, 07:34:16 PM
Q
Or, to save a lot of faffing around, the genetic manipulation in Resurrection wasn't intentional.

They intended to clone Ripley and the Queen inside her.

Everything else was...
An unexpected benefit from the genetic crossing.

And my position is; all the attempts to clone Ripley (and the Queen inside her) from a blood sample, including the failures and the apparent successes, required genetic manipulation.

Why?
1. There is no natural process to separate two types of DNA from a blood sample. It requires the efforts of scientists/experts to do that involving genetic manipulation.
2. There is no natural process where blood can simply be put in a test tube with an egg which leads to the egg being fertilized with the DNA from that blood.
The DNA from the blood has to be removed by a scientist/expert. And then the DNA needs to be placed into an egg by a scientist/expert. That is also genetic manipulation.

* The short animated DNA explanation video in "Jurassic Park", which includes a discussion of DNA manipulation, explains most of what I'm talking about.

;)


SiL
Oct 18, 2020, 08:30:54 PM
Reply #158 on: Oct 18, 2020, 08:30:54 PM
Q
This feels like a semantics argument where both sides know exactly what the others mean but are getting hung up on their choice of words.


SM
Oct 18, 2020, 08:50:03 PM
Reply #159 on: Oct 18, 2020, 08:50:03 PM
Q
Funny about that.


SiL
Oct 18, 2020, 08:54:36 PM
Reply #160 on: Oct 18, 2020, 08:54:36 PM
Q
If we wanna clear up the kerffffle, hybridisation was unintentional.


bb-15
Oct 20, 2020, 01:37:48 AM
Reply #161 on: Oct 20, 2020, 01:37:48 AM
Q
If we wanna clear up the kerffffle, hybridisation was unintentional.

Correct.

This feels like a semantics argument where both sides know exactly what the others mean but are getting hung up on their choice of words.

I think you're right. It's partly my fault because I began with the hybridization example in AR and described it as genetic manipulation which I compared to “Prometheus”.
SM was correct to say that the hybrids in AR were accidental.

* My first comment sounded like only the hybrids in AR were genetic manipulation. Maybe it would help if I said that genetic manipulation = genetic engineering?
In science fiction the best descriptions of genetic engineering within a film are;

Quote
Few films have informed audiences about genetic engineering as such, with the exception of the 1978 The Boys from Brazil and the 1993 Jurassic Park, both of which made use of a lesson, a demonstration, and a clip of scientific film.
(link below)

And AR as well as Jurassic Park are among the most famous science-fiction movies about cloning.

Quote
Cloning is a recurring theme in science fiction films like Jurassic Park (1993), Alien Resurrection (1997),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_in_fiction#Cloning

It is a semantics thing. Is cloning genetic engineerIng (manipulation)? I think so.
But I can see where someone would disagree with me which is OK.

;)


 

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed