Sci-Fi topic - Aliens vs Humans in films (1 Viewer)

[Patrick Sun]

Versus a few scant scenes put in by a director to "allow the audience's imagination to run wild with speculation?"

 

[Ben Menix]

Not trying to start a war or anything, but I have to say I enjoyed reading David's post. It's people who put that kind of thought into their writing that has kept me reading (and occasionally posting) at HTF since '99.
Really, I thought it was great.
Ben Menix
[email protected]

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Seth Paxton wrote:


Quote:



Why don't the colonists in Aliens know about the aliens and have adequate protection before landing? When aliens come to our planet, they scout and have weapons and defenses well outside our abilities, but when we go to their planet we DON?T scout, we do LOSE?







There are several themes running through the Alien films. One of them---and one which I personally find disagreeable and an example of the all too usual "popularization" of science-fiction film---is the "evil corporation/government conspiracy" theme. "The Company", as it's called, has sent the crew of the Nostromo into known danger to capture a "xenomorph" for its bioweapons division. Its interests are represented by the crypto-android, Ash, who stalls and delays the investigation of the thing's true nature.
(Mother says: "Return alien at all costs. Crew expendable.") This theme is repeated in Aliens, where the company and its ethic are embodied in Burke, the company representative who tags along to protect the Company's property (the "xenomorph"), again at all costs. It turns out---and this is made clearer in the expanded edition of the film---the Company had kept secret from the colonists (mostly its own employees and their families) the existence of the original, derelict alien ship that bore the alien eggs until Ripley's ship was retrieved and (presumably) provided computer data on the location of the crash site.
(It's quite possible---and, more importantly, plausible---that so relatively small a colony (of 150 families, I think) could be kept in the dark about a crash site somewhere on a large planet that had to be "terraformed" to support human life in the first place.) Again, the marines' lives, like those of the colonists, are considered expendable by the corporates.

So, the producers of these movies are saying that they (the ordinary colonists) didn't know because the Company (and presumably the higher-ups in the military/government) knew, but chose to conceal the facts from them. Finding the derelict ship would be a matter of "luck", otherwise.

Chad R wrote:



Quote:



And the xenomorphs in 'Aliens' weren't smarter than us, just their particualar evolutionary path allowed them to easily conquer us. It was better explained in the first film with the acid blood. . . . , the aliens are no different than a lion or similar predatory animal on Earth, under the right circumstances they can kill you - the trick is not being caught in such a vulnerable position which the crew of the Nostromo found themselves in.






They may not have been "smarter"---and I'm unclear what this means in the context of this thread---but one of the other (sub)themes running through these movies has been that the aliens do indeed possess a human-like intelligence (at the very least, of the level of the higher apes):

(a) Witness the original alien's means of moving about the Nostromo's ventilation systems so as to avoid head-on confrontation with the armed crew as a group.

(b) In Aliens the aliens "cut the power" on the trapped military expedition in the compound. (Hudson: "'Cut the power'?!? How can they cut the power?!? They're animals!")

(c) The alien in Alien3 cleverly avoids being trapped in the lead works until the religious zealot prisoner Dillon offers himself up as bait and sacrifice.

(d) In Alien: Resurrection two aliens kill a third so that its acid blood will burn a hole through their prison chamber and liberate them. They then allow a marine to enter the chamber---lure 'im, actually---, but, instead of killing him directly, they zap him with liquid nitrogen, using the same button the scientists have heretofore tormented and controlled them with.

I would say they have a lot more "smarts" than any "lion or similar predatory animal on Earth", a whole lot.
Is it "native" or do they come by it from the genes of their hosts? How far does it go? (Does the "baby" in Alien: Resurrection (with its humanoid face) not prefer its "grandma" (the Ripley clone), to its insect-like real ma?) Unfortunately, this whole subtext has never been explored, only hinted at, there, one of the great "misses" of that film series.

As others have pointed out already, in popular Hollywood film-making we do not have "science fiction" per se, but bastard amalgams: "science-fiction thrillers", "science-fiction romances", "science-fiction actioners" (to do a Variety-sort of turn of phrase), etc., all to sell to the general public, which is believed---rightly or wrongly---not to be interested in "science fiction" (a literature of I-D-E-A-S).

In the context of this thread's topic, I wonder what the new Solaris will be like?

 

[Seth Paxton]

Battlefield Earth (don't stone me)

V

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (?)

Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind

Invasion of the BS definately portrays the invaders as being beyond us and in most ways totally aware of what it will take to defeat us, and even to maintain a covert operation right under our noses.

CE3K is an explorer type film, but they still seem beyond us in all ways AND they are not hostile.

I don't recall the aliens in V being clueless in regards to humans, but it's been awhile.

BE - underestimating is the standard, that isn't the same as simply not knowing any more than us or being off guard upon arrival.

 

[Seth Paxton]

If there's some kind of word limit

If there was do you think I'd be allowed to post here?

 

[Seth Paxton]

One example where people weren't really underdogs is Starship Troopers. The result? A box office disappointment that was compared to Nazi propaganda. People are serious about this underdog business...

good point Gabe
Those concepts make us uptight when they are "broken" in the other direction, but with humans going outward people EXPECT those concepts to be broken. That's a double standard of expectation...and I suspect that we've LEARNED it from SF film.
It sure didn't come from the books or practical logic (or experience, except for you that have been probed ).

 

[Seth Paxton]

The Arrival

Sorry for the 4th post, but I just wanted to acknowledge that I read this and think it's a very good counter example. Just what I was looking for.

 

[FilipM]

Seth you seem to think that any aliens simply must forgo any planning, preparation or forethought before engaging in a massive planetary invasion, why is this? Why would they not try to find out as much as possible?
Plus if they are so technologically superior maybe they could gather all that information without us knowing. Could a medieval General know anything about, or even look out for, electronic bugs in a wall or spy satellites. If we overflew 1300s Europe with a U2 at 80,000feet in the night would they see it?
Another thing is most of our human invasion scenarios in movies are in an extreme emergency, as we humans seldom attack first in space movies. The humans try to find out as much as possible but they can’t know everything. However most alien invasion scenarios are a surprise attack to us, so there was window for the aliens to investigate earth beforehand.
Here is an example. The Japanese learned a lot about Pearl Harbor before the attack through espionage and careful study. One of the unusual features of the Pearl Harbor base was its very shallow depth, about 40feet. This made the use of standard aerial torpedoes impossible as they sank to over 100feet on impact with the water. The Japanese Navy then developed a special torpedo that sank less on impact. This was a completely unprecedented development and very surprising to our Navy. Would you consider this an outrageous example of all knowing alien attackers? They just did their homework before attacking, and had the time and more open pre-war atmosphere to do it in.
Imagine this scenario for a space film. We just made it into space in a big way and are new kids on the block so to speak. We now begin interacting with alien races that have traveled through space for centuries and have visited earth extensively in secret. One of these groups decides to attack us for some reason. Would you not expect them to know more about us than we about them?
Seth since this seems to be a great big thorn in your side why not tell us what a good alien invasion movie would be like to you, and not just fill the board with complaints and general all around bad karma.

 

[Seth Paxton]

2 other films mentioned that are getting more at what I'm looking at.
Dave mentioning Star Wars and how it more closely follows a traditional human v human war (though Earth is technically no where to be found). It would seem like serious SF films could really mine this area. STroopers touched on it of course, but then that us going to the aliens rather than aliens coming to us. So that still is part of my problem in the double standard...when we go there we have no advantages, even though we can fly and they can't.
Bad Taste - I haven't seen it yet. But I believe Julie and Brook when they suggest I should. I'll see what I can do about that.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Rex, a question for you as a follow-up then (not as debate, but real inquiry).

Then do you think Alien/Aliens POTENTIALLY could portray the superior (tech-wise) space traveling force able to easily defeat the aliens? And that maybe the films already do play against that typical "its okay when aliens surprise us when we invade" method that is unnacceptable when used in the other direction. Mainly because it does seem to me that the defeat comes more at our own doing than the aliens. So maybe this is a case where humans are shown completely as top dog of species (at least one lower on the tech tree).

I wonder then, how often do aliens undo their own attacks by internal conflicts rather than human intervention?

V was like that a bit, right?

 

[Seth Paxton]

If we overflew 1300s Europe with a U2 at 80,000feet in the night would they see it?

Yes, but they wouldn't even see the attack, would they?

See, that's the "conflict" plot device conflict. They have to be good enough to fly here and scout us, but not good enough to engage a stealth attack because we need to see the conflict. Invasion of the BS being an exception I suppose.

It's like our modern army would scout it out, but then we'd put down the guns and attack with swords.

And in ID4 they still need OUR satellites to coordinate the attack despite all the other techs they have.

And in Signs they have to put down crop circles rather than hidden signal beacons. Even WE don't do that and we don't fly halfway across the galaxy.


I understand the narrative needs here, though there are plenty of ways to do narrative and they aren't all good. There are established genre criteria as Dave touched on, but who is driving the boat, the filmmakers or the audience?

 

[Seth Paxton]

One of these groups decides to attack us for some reason. Would you not expect them to know more about us than we about them?

If you had read the opening post then you would know that this is not the problem specifically.

The problem is that when aliens do it, we accept it. But then we totally accept when humans DON'T or CAN'T.

And you made one mistake about Pearl Harbor, they DIDN'T SCOUT good enough to realize that they could have finished us off in one more pass. They had us (through scouting) and let us off the hook. Then they ended up getting nuked.

Nice scouting. The point being that having ALL THE ANSWERS is almost impossible just when dealing with another culture. Make it an alien species and the gap becomes huge.

You don't know their language, their needs, their desires, their emotions, etc. In fact, you might not have emotions and find emotional actions completely confusing no matter how much you scout. You also may incorrectly identify action, resources, etc. as serving a different purpose than they really do.

Seeing is NOT understanding. And on top of that, even if you do scout, what if you don't have an answer for the problem you discover but are already heavily committed in the journey to get here?

Happened in WW2 all the time and people just had to make do or cross their fingers.

I also notice that you left out Hitler in your WW2 scouting. He used astrology to tell him not to cross water. Cost him the war possibly, certainly kept him from defeating England. Not all methods of "scouting" and planning are as reliable it seems.

Agressive aliens don't run into these problems though. But humans traveling in space to planets without space techs never fail to have these troubles. (well, we are getting a few examples against this).

 

[FilipM]

Ohh you got me started on WW2 now.... Yummy.
Hmm Hitler failed to invade England because the BoB was a major disaster for the Luftwaffe. With no air superiority over the British Isles and specifically none over the channel any sea borne invasion across the channel would have been wiped out by the Royal Navy. Not to mention their invasion depended on the use of glorified river barges or that the surface forces of the Kriegsmarine was nowhere near large or capable enough to support such an operation. So by late 1940 See Lowe, as the planned invasion of England was called was postponed indefinitely. As for your idea that Hitler listened to astrologers, well this is old wives tale based on the wishful thinking of allied intelligence who hoped to influence Hitler's decision making by posting fake information in astrological circles. Anyway Hitler did cross the water several times, unless you consider the invasions of Crete and the whole of North Africa not to have been done over water. Then there was the whole U-Boot war, fought entirely in the water. Hitler had no fear of water. And by late 1940 Hitler began to focus his fantasies on another target farther east....
So there goes your Hitler example, it is false.
As for Pearl Harbor. What exactly are you referring to when you say they could have really finished us off if they came in for another attack wave? There really were only one, perhaps two significant targets left unattacked in Pearl on Dec 7. Can you name them or are you just shooting in the dark. In fact Nagumo would have risked a great deal in coming back for a third attack. The second attack wave suffered pretty decent casualties from heavy AAA. In fact our AAA gunners were so aggressive and accurate in their fire after the initial attack that they even shot down 6 or so US Navy Wildcats which flew over unannounced from Enterprise later in the day. Back to Nagumo. By the initial attack wave they knew there were no US carriers at Pearl so Nagumo must have considered them to be in the area and a threat to his task force. This was true of course since we know Halsey set a massive search operation for the Japanese ships as soon as he got word of the attack. So it was fine and well and nothing about reconnaissance that the Japanese only sent two attack waves.
Sorry about this non-history types but it was needed. I hope you enjoyed reading it anyway.
Seth please tell us what your vision of a proper space alien invasion movie would be. We all know it is very easy to find fault and criticize but not so easy to set forth an appropriate solution. We are also all aware of your boundless energy with regards to this thread so I am confident providing such a vision will present you few problems.

 

[Ben Menix]

FilipM, I think you're missing the point:
The point *is not* that the aliens are always so much better prepared than we are when they attack, or so superior; the point is that we expect exactly the opposite when *humans* attack aliens. In essence, a major theme of summer sci-fi movies is that of the superior alien, whether it comes here or we go there.
To use the WWII analogy:
Japan hits Pearl Harbor in a well-executed surprise attack that almost destroys the Pacific fleet. They had strategy, surprise, and at least one unexpected, superior weapon (the shallow water torpedo). So, we turn around and send a carrier group to find the Japanese ships. When we do, the Japanese ships are faster, protected with heavier armor, carry more powerful guns, and operate with a heretofore unseen precision. Our carrier group just doesn't know how to handle it, and get's wiped out.
Now, granted, those two scenarios hardly ever take place in the same story. But they do illustrate the argument: In many popular sci-fi movies, the "aliens" are always superior, regardless of the situation.
No one is complaining about it (that I can tell, anyway), we're just discussing the many possible reasons why that happens to be the case.
Ben Menix
[email protected]

 

[Jack Briggs]

After skimming through this thing, I say look at Jason Seaver's post: Hollywood "aliens" are never truly alien.

And if one accepts the condition of an interstellar-traveling species coming to present-day Earth, then the aliens obviously are superior.

But this is not always the case. Any number of episodes from Star Trek TOS, TNG, and DS9 portray a superior Earth technology to alien species Starfleet comes upon. Two from TNG, for example: "Who Watches the Watchers?" and "First Contact" (the TNG episode, not the eighth feature film).

So, this assumption of alien superiority is not universal.

 

[Ben Menix]

On the other hand, inferior or "equal at best" alien stories rarely make good summer or fall movies. Episodic television programs don't always have to rely on the "good guy wins the day" punchline.
Of course, movie-making goes through regular swings concerning who should win at the end of the movie. Starting in the '60's, there was a 15 year period of "anti-hero" movies, inspersed with films that challenged you to deal with losing rather than assume that the good guy always wins. In the early '80's, plotlines began swinging back to All-American heros, a trend that continued well into the '90's. It appears to me that we are reaching another growth in "good guy" movies, after spending several years focusing on anti-heros and unresolved conflicts.
These trends actually lend themselved to the portrayal of aliens as "better than humans", as a superior alien fits well into both plots. The only difference is sometimes you get the alien, sometimes the alien gets you. An inferior alien species generally only works in non-related screwball comedies, or as a plot device to describe the writer/film-makers view of current society.
I still maintain, however, that there is a marked inclination to portray any and all aliens as "superior". No, it not universal; it can not be assumed. But when I go into a movie theatre, (or my living room, rather), my money is still on superior aliens.
Ben Menix
[email protected]

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Taking a break.
I don't know why this strikes me as funny, but in some alien galaxy unbeknownst to us, an alien version of Seth Paxton is deliberating the same exact thing.

 

[Ben Menix]

ROTFLMAO

 

[Max Leung]

I'd say that Gabe got it 100% right:

I think the reason why the Aliens are always smarter or better prepared than the humans is just so the human characters can be the underdogs. People like to root for underdogs.

There it is in a nutshell. Movies where all of humanity gets wiped out despite humanity's superior forces or technology will flop at the box office.
Movie-watching humans would not be able to accept the programming, and whole crops will be lost as a result!
Switch the roles of aliens and humans in ID4. Would it be a successful movie then? The only way such a movie would be successful is if it was portrayed as a cautionary fairy-tale about man's hubris, akin to those entertaining-but-dark Greek mythological stories. And those stories don't exactly fly off the bookshelves and make it on the bestseller lists, unless they are bundled with happier stories. Aka the Bible, Brother's Grimm fairy tale collections, Lord of the Rings, etc.
(BTW, I quite enjoyed David Rogers' post).

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Max Leung wrote:

Boy, have you never read a Grimm's fairy tale (in the original)! And the Bible---"happy"? Ha!!!