Are the Aliens intelligent?

[Dave]

The journalist Danny Peary once asked the director Ridley Scott whether near the end of 'Alien', the alien sneaked into the shuttle because it knew the Nostromo was about to blow, or because it was steadfastly following Ripley?

That is a very good question, one that probes the nature and thrust of the alien intelligence. Are the aliens aware of the ship, and do they understand where they are? Or, are they simply well designed cunning carnivores, with an overiding instinct to hunt? What is their motivation?

Ridley Scott sidestepped the question. He said simply "Because we needed an end to the picture."

So, what do you think?

 

[System Lord Gypsy]

Throughout the movies the Aliens have seemed intelligent to a degree and they are definately capable of learning and adapting to situations but how intelligent they are we have never really found out. Just that they are if not as intelligent as humans then more intelligent than most earth based life. It's my belief that in their own way they are as intelligent as humans.

Gypsy

 

[Dave]

That's true. They could easily be as intelligent as humans, but with different alien motivations. We often try to impose our ideas about human behavioural responses onto those of animals, when their apparent responses can be motivated by completely different influences.

Science fiction is even harder to write, who knows what influences or motivate creatures that live in completely alien environments.

The 'aliens' do seem to be able to quick on the uptake, have a long memory and some kind of mental reasoning.

 

[Chilly]

hey

i think they do have brains. i mean in alien 4 the aliemns saw the scientit hurt them so they did wat he did. u have to have some level of throt to be able to do that. then again it cud be a simple case of conditioning. i mean psychologists have taught parrots to play tbale tennis. doesnt mean they think!

 

[System Lord Gypsy]

I agree. There is the theory when training animals, and I don't use this myself that when an animal does something wrong you give it a slap, and it then associates the thing it did with pain and will stop doing it. That is something they were doing with the aliens in resurrection but to be able to figure out that he/she/it could turn the tables on the scientist an alien would have to be pretty intelligent.

Gypsy

 

[markpud]

I'd say it is some combination of a very refined hunting instinct and some level of intelligence, eg in Resurrection when they take revenge on the scentist who was testing them..

 

[stripes]

Good question. Alien Ressurection was the one that mostly explored their intelligence, though I bet you can find evidence in the other films. But I haven't watched them recently, but Resurrection I did, so I will just comment on that one.

They seem to know that they have acidic blood, hence, the brutal death they inflicted on their simbling.

And plus what everybody here has said about that scientist punishing the aliens.

Im sure I can find more, and I'll try to post them later...

 

[MetalAlien]

I think the original vision of the first film (the only one that counts IMO) is that the Aliens are just as much machine as they are organic. Ridley Scott even played with this idea in the Shuttle when the Alien looked so much like the shuttle wall Ripley couldn't see it until she was right on top of it. They seemed to be highly intelligent cybernetic lifeforms. Some of Gigers work showing the details of the smooth glasslike head even have computer circuits inside. Only the latter films turned them into "bugs".

 

[imported_polymath]

Originally posted by MetalAlien
I think the original vision of the first film (the only one that counts IMO) is that the Aliens are just as much machine as they are organic. Ridley Scott even played with this idea in the Shuttle when the Alien looked so much like the shuttle wall Ripley couldn't see it until she was right on top of it. They seemed to be highly intelligent cybernetic lifeforms. Some of Gigers work showing the details of the smooth glasslike head even have computer circuits inside. Only the latter films turned them into "bugs".

No, don't think so.

The whole egg - face hugger - chest burster life cycle is just soooo organic.

The strength of the acidic blood is only possible with organic acids, the strongest inorganic ones are much too limited in strength.

And all the goo and slime - totally gratuitous design for a cybernetic lifeform.

Giger has done thousands of art pieces, many of which have clear overlaps with the Alien design, and many of which have machine elements, but to extrapolate the few that have both elements to conclude that to the alien is cybernetic is several steps too far.

 

[MetalAlien]

Well first off, just look at the original alien deisgn. It's VERY mechanical. Each film has reduced that until now they are just bumpy. But the original was clearly not entirely organic. The very design is called biomechanical by Giger. It may not fit well with every Alien movie, but that was the original idea. The spacejockey is another example. He's a friggen spaceship! Ripley Scott toyed with the whole idea throughout the movie. Remember in the shuttle just after the Alien scared Ripley? The director shows a closeup of it's hand as it is pulled up towards the alien. The shot shows the fingers lying next to some metal tubes which look almost exactly like the fingers, the camera makes a point of showing that. Ridley is teasing you with the idea.

I don't care how it is born, but it becomes almost fully cybernetic. You're talking about extreme technology here. If it doesn't make sense to our science that's ok. Our science sucks.

 

[imported_polymath]

Originally posted by MetalAlien
Well first off, just look at the original alien deisgn. It's VERY mechanical.

I just don't buy this theory - it looks somewhat mechanical in the first film because of the limitations of creature puppets & other special effects back then - it's only very recently that we've managed to make aliens & other creatures that really look alive.

The very design is called biomechanical by Giger. Not in any of the large amount of his writing & interviews that I've seen. He describes his general approach to design as biomechanical, ie he takes inspiration from both creatures and machines, but I can find no reference that this specific creature is intended to be part-machine

The spacejockey is another example. He's a friggen spaceship! Different species, so how relevant? Anyway, the whole spaceship was very organic, so more accurate to say it's an organic spaceship rather than machine pilot and it's a jump too far than to conclude that this implies "all" aliens are part mechanical.

Remember in the shuttle just after the Alien scared Ripley? The director shows a closeup of it's hand as it is pulled up towards the alien. The shot shows the fingers lying next to some metal tubes which look almost exactly like the fingers, the camera makes a point of showing that. Ridley is teasing you with the idea. No, what this is showing is the Aliens cunning & camouflage ability - it finds things (mechanical or organic) that it will not look out of place next to.

I don't care how it is born, but it becomes almost fully cybernetic. You're talking about extreme technology here. How something is born/created is vitally important! If this was really a mechanical construct then it would make more sense for it to use technology for it's reproduction & therefore survival (especially as bits of technology can be found lying around for a long time), rather than rely on finding a suitable living host.

If it doesn't make sense to our science that's ok. Our science sucks. Too true, but even with our science if we were designing a mechanical construct we would do better than this - some sort of ranged attack for starters! And fire-proof! The Alien has all the hallmarks of a being that has evolved biologically to deal with other creatures, not a mechanical one designed with a view to the realities of a mechanical environment (which it is, throughout the films, rapidly learning & evolving to deal with, overcoming it's biological ancestry).

 

[MetalAlien]

I just don't buy this theory - it looks somewhat mechanical in the first film because of the limitations of creature puppets & other special effects back then - it's only very recently that we've managed to make aliens & other creatures that really look alive.

What? Are you serious? Do you think the look is because of ther limations? The movement yes, but Giger hand sculpted the Alien. How do you think computer models start today? They start with hand sculptures that are scanned into a computer. No the look would be the same today if Giger did it, only the movement would improve.

Not in any of the large amount of his writing & interviews that I've seen. He describes his general approach to design as biomechanical, ie he takes inspiration from both creatures and machines, but I can find no reference that this specific creature is intended to be part-machine

Well then you're not paying attention. Have you seen the original - original alien design? It was made for a film way before Alien. It was Gigers first "long headed" creature. It's head was a camera! It had a camera lens sticking out of it, and you could see the gears and stuff inside. And I've already told you in some of Gigers work you can actually see computer circuits in the domed head. gigers work has always mixed both organic and inorganic. That's his whole theme!

Different species, so how relevant? Anyway, the whole spaceship was very organic, so more accurate to say it's an organic spaceship rather than machine pilot and it's a jump too far than to conclude that this implies "all" aliens are part mechanical.

Different in the same way Chimps are different than us, but clearly they are from the same world. If you don't think so, you are blind. You seem to have a mental block about machine life. If it were purely organic it would look purely organic. But it doesn't. It looks like dead flesh grown over a machine base. You can't just ingore the mechanical bits.

No, what this is showing is the Aliens cunning & camouflage ability - it finds things (mechanical or organic) that it will not look out of place next to.

Oh now you are really reaching. Camouflage? Good thing there was some mechanical equipment lying around so it could hide.
Ridley was showing how inorganic it was, that was a very new concept at the time.
http://www.angelfire.com/al/metalalien/alienhandcap.JPG
http://www.angelfire.com/al/metalalien/alienshuttlecap1.JPG
http://www.angelfire.com/al/metalalien/wallcap1.JPG

How something is born/created is vitally important! If this was really a mechanical construct then it would make more sense for it to use technology for it's reproduction & therefore survival (especially as bits of technology can be found lying around for a long time), rather than rely on finding a suitable living host.

Now you are just thinking too much. It's a monster movie. They have to make it scary. Besides a truly cybernertic being might very well repoduce organically. It starts off mostly organic, then grows up to be about half and half. It's the kind of transistion some lifeforms make on earth. Caterpillars for example.

Too true, but even with our science if we were designing a mechanical construct we would do better than this - some sort of ranged attack for starters! And fire-proof! The Alien has all the hallmarks of a being that has evolved biologically to deal with other creatures, not a mechanical one designed with a view to the realities of a mechanical environment (which it is, throughout the films, rapidly learning & evolving to deal with, overcoming it's biological ancestry).

Only the first film counts, all the others deveated from the original concept. But if you must add-in the other films. The Aliens technical manuel which came out with aliens said that the aliens could even survive by being near large power transformers so they could draw electricity from it. Not in the offical movie, but it shows you I'm not the only one to come to the conclusion about cybernetics. Besides it was designed by an alien race, who knows what problem they were trying to solve. Maybe they had a reason not to include guns and so forth.

But let's just look at the creature itself. It can grow to adulthood in 24 hours or less. It had pipes and tubes running all through it's body. It can survive in a vacume. It can cling to ceilings and so forth despite not apparently having the right claws/feet to do so (antigravity maybe?) It has metal teeth for gods sake. Sure sounds like it's more than just organic to me, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Seems H.R. Giger and Ridley Scott both think the same thing. At least I can be wrong in good company.

EDIT: after reading my post it seems a bit hostile, I hope you don't think I'm mad at you or anything. I'm just passionate about my Alien films.

http://www.angelfire.com/al/metalalien/teethcap1.JPG

 

[imported_polymath]

Originally posted by MetalAlien
you're not paying attention. Have you seen the original - original alien design? It was made for a film way before Alien. It was Gigers first "long headed" creature. It's head was a camera! It had a camera lens sticking out of it, and you could see the gears and stuff inside. And I've already told you in some of Gigers work you can actually see computer circuits in the domed head. gigers work has always mixed both organic and inorganic. That's his whole theme!

No No NO. You are taking some of Gigers general ideas (the creature-machine hybrid) and insisting they apply to every single thing he does! We are talking about a specific alien species and set of films here, not an artists whole body (no pun intended) of work.

Originally posted by MetalAlien

[re: ship/pilot in original film] Different in the same way Chimps are different than us, but clearly they are from the same world. If you don't think so, you are blind. You seem to have a mental block about machine life. If it were purely organic it would look purely organic. But it doesn't. It looks like dead flesh grown over a machine base. You can't just ingore the mechanical bits.

Why clearly from same world - it was a starship - if it originated on same world wouldn't it have had defenses against aliens - much more likely another ship like Nostromo that got infested. It doesn't even look similar in way chimps are like us - it was very flowing and had an endoskeleton look (inside it was like inside of a whale) whereas aliens clearly have exoskeleton.

I've looked and looked and there's just no bits of the alien that are more mechanical than many earth insects - unless you think they are also machines (now that's going to give someone nightmares!).

And no, I've nothing against machine life, but there are a heap of other aliens that are clearly this, just not these ones.

Originally posted by MetalAlien

Oh now you are really reaching. Camouflage? Good thing there was some mechanical equipment lying around so it could hide.
Ridley was showing how inorganic it was, that was a very new concept at the time.

How is this reaching? Many species on earth, even unintelligent, choose to hide near shapes that match theirs, certainly the aliens, which are at least semi-intelligent and very cunning would do so. Looking at their shapes they could equally well hide in many environments, so it's not like they are dependent on a mechanical environment.

And not a new concept - had been around in SF for decades (Daleks just as one example of many!)

Originally posted by MetalAlien
Now you are just thinking too much. It's a monster movie. They have to make it scary.

Yes, I'll let you have that one, but don't you think that counters your arguments also?

Originally posted by MetalAlien
Only the first film counts, all the others deveated from the original concept. But if you must add-in the other films. The Aliens technical manuel which came out with aliens said that the aliens could even survive by being near large power transformers so they could draw electricity from it. Not in the offical movie, but it shows you I'm not the only one to come to the conclusion about cybernetics. Besides it was designed by an alien race, who knows what problem they were trying to solve. Maybe they had a reason not to include guns and so forth.

You're definitely on dodgy ground if you have to start picking and choosing which films and books "count". No reason organics can't draw energy from electric/magnetic sources too (a lot of bacteria draw energy from such "mechanical" sources). And while there may be reasons for not including guns, just a decent range spit of that acid would be incredibly useful - and anyone who could design a machine as sophisticated as the alien could surely do something about it's vulnerability to ranged attacks?

Originally posted by MetalAlien

But let's just look at the creature itself. It can grow to adulthood in 24 hours or less. It had pipes and tubes running all through it's body. It can survive in a vacume. It can cling to ceilings and so forth despite not apparently having the right claws/feet to do so (antigravity maybe?) It has metal teeth for gods sake. Sure sounds like it's more than just organic to me, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Seems H.R. Giger and Ridley Scott both think the same thing. At least I can be wrong in good company.http://www.angelfire.com/al/metalalien/teethcap1.JPG

Am I missing something here? Pipes and tubes mean it's part machine? Don't we all have veins, arteries, respiratory tract, digestive tract, reproductive system, lymphatic system and many other tubes and pipes in us?

Most creatures that can cling to surfaces (especially fairly flat ones) do so with microscopic hairs and suckers, not the kind of thing that depends on a visible shape of foot/claws.

Metal teeth - not sure of your source here, but even allowing it that doesn't make it overtly mechanical - your body relies on large amounts of iron and other metals, and a number of crustacea actually secrete metals into their shells which is only a small step away from metal teeth.

Originally posted by MetalAlien

EDIT: after reading my post it seems a bit hostile, I hope you don't think I'm mad at you or anything. I'm just passionate about my Alien films.

Not at all - nothing wrong with a passionate discussion! is anyone else reading this - can we have a vote on machine vs organic?

 

[Dave]

I've been following the discussion. I admit that I had always thought that they were organic, but I'm almost convinced on the part-machine idea (a cyborg?) now. I don't believe that they are completely mechanical though.

I do think that if we ever meet any real aliens, and they do not share a common origin with us, (via viruses from space, seeded DNA, etc.) then their physiology is likely to be totally "alien". So, trying to describe them in terms of existing Earth species would be impossible.

However, the "face-hugger" stage in their development does seem ideally adapted to our sized heads and throats. It could have been specially grown that way because the egg 'detected' us and then designed it's development that way though.

I also agree that you can't just take the first film alone. Maybe the various writers and directors spoilt the original idea (that would be an entirely different argument) but they made the films and that's how they are.

So, the fact that they clearly say that they "clone" the alien-Ripley alien in Alien Resurrection is proof that it is partly organic.

 

[MetalAlien]

No No NO. You are taking some of Gigers general ideas (the creature-machine hybrid) and insisting they apply to every single thing he does! We are talking about a specific alien species and set of films here, not an artists whole body (no pun intended) of work.

His general ideas were the basis of the first creature and the space jockey. The concepts before he came on board were nothing like the alien. Ridley saw his paintings and said "that's IT!". He didn't say, "wow we can take this out of context and make something based on this but different".

Why clearly from same world - it was a starship - if it originated on same world wouldn't it have had defenses against aliens - much more likely another ship like Nostromo that got infested. It doesn't even look similar in way chimps are like us - it was very flowing and had an endoskeleton look (inside it was like inside of a whale) whereas aliens clearly have exoskeleton.

I've looked and looked and there's just no bits of the alien that are more mechanical than many earth insects - unless you think they are also machines (now that's going to give someone nightmares!).

And no, I've nothing against machine life, but there are a heap of other aliens that are clearly this, just not these ones.

Well look the problem is I don't have a quote from Ridley saying they were part machine. I could point at a car and say it's mechanical and you could ask me to prove it, but how would I without taking it apart to show you? You could argue that it's (the car) too flowing and graciful to be mechanical and I could say
yea but it's metal as burns gas to move, and you could so say so could organic life.

I'm not trying to say the Aliens were meant to be purely machine. But I am saying they are like the perfect blend of machine and organic. They are neither machine or organic but both. A being that can not be easily classified by the terms and examples we have here on earth. I'm also saying the concept was dropped quickly after the others films were made.

How is this reaching? Many species on earth, even unintelligent, choose to hide near shapes that match theirs, certainly the aliens, which are at least semi-intelligent and very cunning would do so. Looking at their shapes they could equally well hide in many environments, so it's not like they are dependent on a mechanical environment.

And not a new concept - had been around in SF for decades (Daleks just as one example of many!)

It's reaching because why would it look like a very industrial wall? Why would it even look close to that if it wasn't also part mechanical. I've never seen a bug on earth that could pass for anything mcehanical. And the concect of truely blending organic and mechanical life is still new today. The Borg from Star Trek look primative compared to the Aliens. Yes the Aliens can't shoot, but if they could the movie would have been over too fast Besides maybe the Aliens are a terror weapon, made to kill in the worst possible way. What's more frightening, being shot or eaten?

Also the first film does alot of stuff the others do not. In the deleted scerne Brett and Dallas were being turned into eggs. Assimilated if you will The other movies never mention that ability again. you could say no other Aliens needed to, but alien3 the alien was in almost the same situation, and no egg.

The whole queen concept is Camerons idea, originally you were sorta assimilated into an egg.

Yes, I'll let you have that one, but don't you think that counters your arguments also?

We will both have to live with the fact no movie will make perfect sense all the time.

You're definitely on dodgy ground if you have to start picking and choosing which films and books "count". No reason organics can't draw energy from electric/magnetic sources too (a lot of bacteria draw energy from such "mechanical" sources). And while there may be reasons for not including guns, just a decent range spit of that acid would be incredibly useful - and anyone who could design a machine as sophisticated as the alien could surely do something about it's vulnerability to ranged attacks?

Well hey I'm the one that said only the first film counts, you are the one that brought up the others. The other movies (including the 2nd) made up new rules. Which is dumb, no single movie series would allow so much change as they did in the aliens series. The creatures are unique to each film which is stupid.
Hell even Friday the 13th managed to stay consistant for 4 films before changing the format (yes I'm aware his mother was the killer in the first).

Am I missing something here? Pipes and tubes mean it's part machine? Don't we all have veins, arteries, respiratory tract, digestive tract, reproductive system, lymphatic system and many other tubes and pipes in us?

Show me any part on any creature from earth with a single pipe or vein that looks like those on the Alien. I can show you some that I use to run wire in the wall though In fact when they built the Aliens for 1 and 2 they used standard electrical and plumming suplies for all those bits. I recently read a post in another board where a guy is building an Alien and wanted to know where to find the tubing used in the head. I guy posted a reply and said it was tubing from a water pump his company uses on his construction site.

Most creatures that can cling to surfaces (especially fairly flat ones) do so with microscopic hairs and suckers, not the kind of thing that depends on a visible shape of foot/claws.

And that would work for something 8ft tall? Are you sure?

Metal teeth - not sure of your source here, but even allowing it that doesn't make it overtly mechanical - your body relies on large amounts of iron and other metals, and a number of crustacea actually secrete metals into their shells which is only a small step away from metal teeth.

I supplied a picture for refference in my other reply. Again, if you are using examples of earth life to prove the alien is organic, show me anything with metal teeth!

Image of the metal teeth
http://www.angelfire.com/al/metalalien/teethcap1.JPG

There's no way to win on either side. I think they are cybernetic, and you don't. The End.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by MetalAlien
Well look the problem is I don't have a quote from Ridley saying they were part machine.

I now have Alien on DVD and in the Ridley Scott commentary he makes several interesting remarks about how he viewed the alien.

Firstly, he says that the Titles were deliberately made hieroglyphic-like to make the aliens seem 'sophisticated'. Sophisticated means clever in my dictionary.

He certainly saw the alien as bio-mechanical in nature, he says this several times in fact.

He saw the derelict spaceship as an egg transporter. The "jockey-pilot" was not necessarily from the same race as the aliens, or an innocent spacefarer attacked by aliens, but could have been taking the eggs as bio-mechanical weapons to some other world, when one accidently escaped.

He says that the Company would have wanted the alien as a bio-mechanical weapon itself. Companies of the future having become so powerful that they require their own armies (something he explored further in BladeRunner.)

Finally, he says that the reason the alien looks humanoid is because it gestated inside Kane. If it had attacked Jones the cat first, then it would have looked feline. He uses the analogy of insects that lay their eggs within other insects.

 

[MetalAlien]

Even in the horrid Alien ressurection one of the things they hope to gain from the Alien was "new alloys". As far as the Jockey being the same race, I'm just going by looks. Giger made them both and everything giger does looks like it's from the same planet. He could draw a rock and it'd have bones all over it.

I don't think anyone will have their minds changed by an internet debate.