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

[Max Leung]

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

The Bible actually has some happy stuff in it...y'know, people cooperating against a common enemy and winning. But, I actually meant to put the Aka sentence ahead of the "And those stories" sentence.

That is, it should read:

. . . those entertaining-but-dark Greek mythological stories. Aka the Brother's Grimm fairy tale collections. And those stories don't exactly fly off the bookshelves and make it on the bestseller lists, unless they are bundled with happier stories, such as The Bible, Hans Chistian Anderson collection, Lord of the Rings, etc.

But of course, those unhappy stories tend to have a "misery loves company" feel to them.

 

[Max Leung]

What I haven't heard mentioned yet in this whole "alien vs. human" thread is the absolute universal fascination with parasites. Humans have been combating parasites through all of history, and we have developed a natural fear and fascination of these biological entities that intrude into our bodies. Think of the near-universal fear of snakes (that resemble very closely the worms that emerged out of sores in the legs when they reach maturity...these worms are now the universal medical symbol: two "snakes" entwined around a wooden stick) and spiders.
The movie "Alien" is what I would deem the ultimate parasite movie (AND the ultimate alien vs. human movie). It represents the million years of struggle between our species and every other species that would use us as a host. Yet, the alien in the movie is unique in that it resembles us physically when in the late stage of its lifecycle, and will then ACTIVELY look for human hosts (most parasites in nature are much more subtle...controlling our behavior through biochemical manipulation). "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is another movie that follows this millenia-old formula.
Nothing is more personal then battling your internal demons...psychological, or parasitical. Which is why I think the Alien-series and the numerous x-files episodes that feature our favorite parasites are far more compelling than the boring by-the-numbers aliens from outer space schlock we see all the time. Hell, even the movie Species had its moments.
So, if you think of "alien vs. human" films from a more grounded perspective...from the point of view of natural human behavior against external (or internal!) entities, then maybe it will help push this discussion along some more!

 

[Max Leung]

Also, any word on how the movie adaptation of "Ender's Game" handles the "aliens vs. humans" scenario? If it is faithful to the novel then it would be atypical of SF movies in that

humans will amass a technologically superior force that invades the aliens' space and wipes them out.

Although the novel's prehistory would fit into the "aliens arrive and nearly destroy earth but for one tiny thing" formula put forward by Seth. Hmmm.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Seth Paxton wrote:


Quote:



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 am not aware of any real incongruency in our viewpoints on this matter, so I'm unclear specifically what your question is, and don't know exactly how to answer. It is clear that human technology, if co-ordinated, can master the aliens in this series. Ash tells the inquiring Ripley something like "Fire drives most animals, yes?", so the Nostromoites arm themselves with flamethrowers (but never get to use them on the alien). The conflict in Aliens turns on whether the marines, defeated on the ground in head-to-head confrontation with the aliens (just by sheer numbers), will be allowed to "nuke the whole nest" from orbit. The company representative, Burke, wants to prevent this, of course, and tries to sabotage and sacrifice the crew in the process of preventing it. Ripley is amazed (and disgusted (?)) to learn that there are no weapons at all on Fiorina IV(?), the prison planet setting of Alien3. But, as the confrontations with the military in Alien: Resurrection show, it's not as simple as "technological superiority". The sheer power, and, yes, intelligence of the aliens signify that in a stand-up fight the aliens are "bio-equipped" to match heavily armed humans. Like insects, they have the advantages of huge numbers and rapid reproduction (and therefore, rapid adaptation and evolution). And they use their prey as gestational hosts (food also???), to boot. ("Waste not, want not.") Unlike humans, they are, as Ash states, fearless and without "morals" or qualms about destroying. (Of course, on that point, we don't really know, since we can only see them from their human protagonists' or victims' point of view.) But that, too, is an advantage in battle. So, potentially, yes (I guess), but realistically, no, I don't believe that they could be killed off easily except by remote use of catastrophic-weapons technology (nuclear weapons, an engineered virus, perhaps, or the like). Even then, their mode of reproduction and their adaptability and hardiness as a species assure that it would be pretty hard to ever dispose of the whole species. (Just try to get rid of all the flies or wasps or ants on Earth. Almost impossible, even with advanced technology. Nature's given them a built-in advantage.) Technology doesn't and never will answer all our problems, as Americans seem to think.



Quote:



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?






First of all, it should be recognized that we seldom are allowed to see the inner workings of the "other" side. Most of the filmic literature is strictly anthropocentric. Second, although V does give us such a glimpse, there is a definite reason for this view. As all the critics I read at the time stated and what to me is clear and obvious, V is a very thinly veiled political parable. The saurian make-up only diguises a human entity, just as most (humanoid) alien species are depicted in on-screen sf (that is, as "human under the skin"). The patently political messages of V always turned me off, so I haven't made it a point to see it in years, much less remember a whole lot about it, but that much is clear. V is in some ways so conventional that it's like watching the "morality play" of a Star Trek episode or series of episodes. You could replace the principal antagonists with Romulans, Klingons, or Vorta, and any of these with Chinese, Soviets, or (gulp) Nazis.

As long as that kind of "alien" predominates in Hollywood filmed entertainment there won't be much hope of change. But the unnamed species of the Alien-series is more truly "alien", a much better measure of hostile alien-human contact. (Of course, being eyeless and speechless helps. The old complaint against movie aliens was always about the eyes---"too 'human'". And when they opened their mouths to communicate . . . well, forget about it!)

I think this species, due to its clear inhumanness, is a better example for some of the points you want to make, although not about technology, obviously. These buggers present a different kind of alien-human contact, especially because they aren't either "cute" little animals or "superior" intelligences. If they have an agenda, we don't know what it is. We just know that contact is LETHAL. (Note that the Alien-series has started no trend---yes, there have been cheap, but ineffectual "knock-offs"---in the depiction of alien-human relations.)


A more general point of note seems relevant here. Science fiction (or, for that matter, supernatural horror) can be interpolative or extrapolative. That is, the element of the unknown and unfamiliar, the "weird", can be introduced into a known environment or elements of the known environment, e.g., people, can be injected into an unfamiliar, or "alien", setting. By far, more interesting to me as an sf fan is the latter. I watch (or, rarely, read) far-out fiction or literature exactly so that I can be "projected" into unknown territory. So, where does the (vast?) majority of alien-human contact take place in Hollywood film?

Correlative to your plaint, but remaining only implicit in your posts, is the fact that Hollywood's emphasis has always been placed on the interpolative angle of presentation (for what should be obvious reasons). Naturally, that puts the emphasis on human activity and pretty much delimits the narrative viewpoint to Earth people's. An exposition and exploration of "otherness" becomes much harder, and, therefore, much less likely under those conditions. Consequently, the chance for mankind to play anything but the put-upon underdog, the "invadee", so to speak, is greatly reduced.

 

[Seth Paxton]

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.

What Ben said is exactly correct.


Filip, I will concede the history points since I know much less than you do on the subject it seems. These are things I was told in school quite some time ago, but I know how accurate that sort of thing can be, quite honestly. IIRC Crawdaddy is quite the WW2 buff so I'm surprised he didn't jump in and put me in my place as well.

Anyway, I retract those points as wrong, though I'm certain I could find other scenarios that would apply just as well.

Ben clarified my point quite nicely in the post I quoted from above. That's all this thread is about...our inferiority complex in SF films AND our willingness to not only accept this concept but to EXPECT it even.

 

[Seth Paxton]

an alien version of Seth Paxton is deliberating the same exact thing.

Really, would there be a noticeble difference?
Just think, when we do make contact our 2 civilizations will probably sissy-slap fight out of fear of each other's superiority.
Picture marines and those CE3K aliens slapping at each other like that.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Jack, but regarding Star Trek here is my point. That is a case where humans travel the universe and come across civs with lower techs.
However, nobody thinks it's "stupid" when some crew members are still killed as part of the away team.
But if the away team in Signs is killed by water, or the away team in War of the Worlds is killed by germs, people find it "unlikely" that they wouldn't have known and been prepared for that option.
My question then becomes "how do those red shirts on ST keep getting killed on alien planets if we have the tech to scour the universe and even scan planets from space?"
You see the point now? Everybody is ready to say "now how did a superior race not realize this was lethal and protect themselves" if an alien is killed on Earth, but when a human is killed on an alien planet of lesser technology we easily accept it and actually expect it.
Of course the unknown actor and dramatic music give us a clue too...

 

[Seth Paxton]

Rex, what you talked about was exactly what I was looking for in a response from you, even though it didn't seem clear to you what I wanted.
This is an interesting point especially though

The sheer power, and, yes, intelligence of the aliens signify that in a stand-up fight the aliens are "bio-equipped" to match heavily armed humans

This sort of touches on the tech tree thing I've been debating. Are the aliens in Alien/Aliens really of a "lower" military tech level than the humans? Or if they are, are they a LOT lower?
Same thing with the Starship Troopers bugs.
It also reminds me of a short story by Bruce Sterling called "Hive" (iirc) which can be found in Crystal Express among other places.
"Technology" and tech needs are HEAVILY dependent on what your biology and environment already provide. Bio-techs supplement the technology that is actually needed by the species/culture.
If you live in the artic and never "invented" the refridgeration are you lower on the tech tree? If you live in the desert and haven't invented the space heater are you lower on the tech tree? Would bird-like creatures invent planes? Would mermaids invent submarines? If you were a telepathic race would you invent walkie-talkies (or language even)?
These things affect the tech tree quite a bit.
I don't really want to rehash Signs here, but just along this specific point. That species is obviously big into the camouflage method of defense. It was asked why they weren't wearing protective suits, but then those suits would cover up their chameleon skin which was obviously much more valuable to their defense from their point of view. They also made their ships invisible, but what if a "shield" undid that effect (ala Star Trek 6 for example)?
This is what I mean by different tech trees for different cultures, and why I think it's a flaw to have the same expectations of a different species. They have totally different needs and backgrounds and what might seem like an advancement to us might just appear to be spinning your wheels or a step back to them.
So some aliens (ala Aliens) might feel no compulsion to design weapons since they ARE the weapon.
It seems like we are very comfortable in acknowledging this "unknown difference" when we envision ourselves going to other planets. But when we see aliens coming to our planet we expect them to have little or no confusion, despite the fact that they should be trying to cross the same large gap of difference in culture/biology/etc.
Why do you think we ACCEPT that thinking? Not just why it makes for a good film, but why is it a "surprise" in War of the Worlds that something so simple could beat aliens, rather than us EXPECTING it to be that way. Yet few of us are surprised when humans land on the "Angry Red Planet" and all sorts of unexpected problems crop up. We don't say "why didn't you know about that". And yet to the inhabitants these problems might seem as trivial as poison ivy or bees are to us.

 

[Max Leung]

Seth, it seems you're talking in circles.
Can't you accept that the reason why SF movies are portrayed in the manner you outlined is because Hollywood lacks the vision for anything better? It is "accepted" by the mainstream simply because Hollywood doesn't put out anything else!
Add in the fact that many people are comfortable with particular formulas in different movie genres (the typical romantic comedy, the typical gangster movie, the typical alien invasion flick, etc.) as a means of escape, with the understanding that there is a happy ending, then it is no wonder that SF movies are in the quandry they are in now.
Some notable exceptions to the typical aliens vs. humans rhetoric:
- Contact, which is very much a philisophical look at science versus faith, which just happens to involve possible alien contact (I haven't seen Signs, but is Signs similar in theme?)
- Alien and Aliens, where (tradional) technological superiority is absolutely irrelevant when the invader uses your biology against you. Humans have not developed the biological technology to combat the biologoically "superior" aliens. For this and other reasons that I explained in one of my previous posts, I believe this was a breakthrough movie in the SF genre. Unfortunately, no one has been able to equal it since, since Alien/Aliens was so thorough in examining the implications.
There are other movies that break the mold, I'm sure.
Now, I would like to turn the tables around and say that the issues Seth was talking about are also extremely prevalent in the SF written fiction genre as well. You can't just single out movies. One only has to browse the SF/fantasy section of bookstores and you'll see that the majority of work follows the same formula used by Hollywood, where aliens suprise the humans, but underestimate some particular aspect of humanity/environment and the tables are turned and humanity successfully repels the invaders.
It's not just in the movies, folks!

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Seth Paxton wrote:

Well, yeah, naturally, since culture, by definition, is a body of pervasive, transmissible (i.e., learnable and teachable) repeated behaviors among any coherent group, the original motivations behind which are (presumed) to meet some function adaptive to a given local (social, ecological, etc.) environment. So, yes, merfolk wouldn't need to build submarines and, therefore, presumably wouldn't have the motivation to invent them. That's what the Romans meant by "necessity being the mother of invention" (or adaptation).
I haven't seen Signs, or followed any discussions in the threads, so I can say nothing about it.
By the way, the Drac of Enemy Mine seem to be roughly comparable to humans in technology and intellect. It looks as though either side could win the war depicted in that film, if technology alone is the key factor. So, humans seem to be as ready for the challenge as the enemy. Note that humans (unsanctioned, but tolerated) are depicted as using the enemy populations for slave labor (hence, the double entendre of the title). So, there you have an intelligent, sentient "alien" race enslaved by humans in sf film. Of course, once again, it helps to know that the film-makers are also determined to "make a statement" (ho-hum) about the "human condition", as all the actors (and extras???) under the Drac make-up are reported to have been blacks. (Davitch to Sammis: "Drac is beautiful!")
"Man is the measure of all things"???

 

[Max Leung]

Ah, I had forgotten about Enemy Mine! That's also a good example of an SF movie that makes a statement about the human condition, as you put it, where the aliens parallel a particular group or ideology that exists in the real world.

Heck, it seems all SF movies are like that.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I haven't seen Signs, but is Signs similar in theme?)

Yes and no. It's not faith vs science, but it is about faith, fate, and chance in our lives. I mentioned that a good companion piece to Signs is the other recent release 13 Conversations about One Thing, not SF but another angle on the same ideas.
It is interesting to compare the questions asked by Contact with the questions asked by Signs. The mixing of "God" and alien life makes for very interesting SF I think, though Signs does NOT try to resolve that aspect either.

 

[Seth Paxton]

where aliens suprise the humans, but underestimate some particular aspect of humanity/environment and the tables are turned and humanity successfully repels the invaders.

Has there been ANY film that applies this formula to humans invading/fighting on an alien world/space? Where WE have the power but underestimate some aspect and lose? I can't remember anyone mentioning one like that yet.

And remember Rex that one thing I was also pointing out is that while that is the formula, it is often rejected by audiences in the end because aliens "wouldn't be that dumb/do that/etc". That was also one of the first things I was mentioning in this thread.

It's just a very tricky genre in regards to what audiences will accept, and yet audiences have no REAL experience to be comparing to.