> Based solely on the first film, my notion was that the Alien was capable of using radically different organisms to reproduce.
Yeah, but seems like the "face hugger" was specialized to hug human like faces, but what about organisms where the feeding-hole is not in the face. Let alone specialized to a carbon based organic life-form ... when since it had acid for blood it might be more likely for it to be able to consume things that are closer to its own chemistry.
> The good thing about the first film is that we know so little and because the film feels real, we can accept that things might have an unknown explanation.
Yes, that is the cleverness of Alien. It worked really well, despite how ridiculous it was.
> Of course, we don't know what it found to eat, but it would have been nice to see evidence of something being eaten.
I agree, that is kind of a violation of the filmmaker-audience theatrical relationship.
I forget who said it, some Russian director I think, but when the audience sees a gun on the wall in the first act, they know that someone is going to use it in the third act. That is, the movie-world is recursively symbolic - if the director is doing a good job and sticking to artistic protocols.
It would not have taken much for then to perhaps in with all those tractors and equipment show the fuel tanks chewed open and drained, or anything organic, like seed stock, or even chewed up padding on the walls would have been interesting and created a more closing in on them atmosphere.
reply
share