WARNING - LONG POST AHEAD - FOR HIGHLAND EYES ONLY... JUST KIDDING...
Those were concepts that prevailed AND were in-character, so don't start the victory dance just yet, Highland...
The Super-facehugger idea should have been in the theatrical all along because it makes more sense and explained the single egg shot much more clearly...A Queen and a drone to protect it... Perfect sense...
Now, THIS does not make any sense at all... This RC has no relationship with the previous ones, and this is far worse than a Queen design (which most love anyway, including me) and the superfacehugger, which the Assembly Cut rightfully placed back...
The Queen notion was naturally derivative from the eggs that were in the Derelict (perfectly logical) and the superfacehugger is a concept that is very credible as, for preservation of the species, the Queen should not be born and left unpretected while growing up and vulnerable to any possible predators and therefore risking the preservation of the species...
So it would be natural (and quite brilliant also) that the facehugger containing the Queen embryo would also have the drone embryo, the protector... Hence the Superfacehugger design and concept... a bigger facehugger than usual and with the crown...
About the sci-fi joke, have you ever seen
2001...? I guess not, because if you did, then you would know that
SCIence
FIction means Fiction scientifically viable... Meaning, futuristic settings where the fictionalised story takes place, with scientifically viable and/or possible notions... Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, they all wrote Sci-fi books translated into movies, and they ALL were Sci-fi movies, and they all had either feasible technology, real physics, possible technologically sound futuristic worlds, but all with roots in real astronomical, phsyical and chemical realities...
Ash in Alien used scientific terminology to analyse the facehugger...Ripley's commands during liftoff from the planet were realistic... Cryostasis... Planet's atmosphere components... In
Aliens, no ray guns, rather caseless rounds weapons, Ferro and Spunkmeyer's techno and pilot babble before landing... The notion of thermonuclear explosions...
So, try a little harder... And don't make mistakes like that... the term SCIENCE FICTION says it all... Keyword - SCIENCE...
Therefore, it has to be grounded on reality or a possible one...
The Alien movies were founded on real physics... even the Alien was studied and analysed with scientific terminology (aminoacids, proteins, sillicon...)...So, don't try to sell that crap...
I liked Alien movies especially because they were grounded on reality, or a possible future... They had a realistic approach to it, not the Star Wars approach... The ships were designed by Ron Cobb, who was professed to like things that could actually be built...So, with all this source material, how can you keep a straight face saying that if I like movies founded on reality, I cannot like Sci-fi movies...?
The best sci-fi movies are the ones that are visionary, like 2001...fully based on reality or a possible, viable reality, namely, real astronomical and technological concepts, or the ones that create a plausible future within 10, 20 , 100 years... Alien movies did that, with corporate power, corporate paranoia, corporate backstabbing, corporate greed...Even the Alien RC was built on plausibility...if it was too farfetched or without any logic attached to it, it would not have gathered so many fans, I assure you...
