The article says the genetic Xenomorphs were Xenomorphs born from the Queen extracted from Ripley 8. This is somewhat false, as there were originally 13 Xenomorphs aboard the Auriga before Ripley 8 killed the first, but there were only five people/lab-rats in "the cargo" that birthed their aliens (Purvis was the sixth). That means that the Xenomorphs extracted from Ripleys 1-7 had to be on the ship as well, so they count as "genetic Xenomorphs", too. (13 (total) - 5 (hosts) = 8, then subtract the 1 Xenomorph killed by its "bunkmates", which Wren didn't know about, and you have 7. If Wren thought that Purvis's alien had also been "born", then he may have excluded the Queen because she doesn't leave the nest. But even if he was aware about Purvis and wasn't excluding Big Mama, there were still more than 6 Xenomorphs to start out with. Wren also had no way of knowing if any additional crew members had been abducted for use as hosts, so he would have only given the figure he was certain of.)
As for some circumstantial evidence: just because the hosts they came from were severely mutated, it doesn't mean the Xenomorphs inside them weren't functional (for want of a better word/phrase). Considering this species' DNA naturally blends with its hosts', I would assume the genetic crossing that resulted in the severely mutated "Ripleys" would have had very minimal effects on the Xenomorphs themselves. (I say "assume" because, logically, it follows exceptionally well, but I ultimately have no solid confirmation from any authority of the series.) The reason they kept experimenting up until Ripley 8 was because the Xenomorphs produced in Ripleys 1-7 didn't develop into Queens for some reason, and "Her Majesty here [was] the real payoff."
I'll make my changes to the article in 48 hours if there are no objections. I also posted this subject on the regular Xenomorph talk page, so I'll change that article as well. Damaijin (talk) (Contribs) 02:27, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
There is an objection here, because there was more than six hosts, notice how many cryotubes there are before the scene shifts to the egg opening scene? also there is no proof that the aliens came from the the failed clones. That is just speculation.
Also the xenomorph in Ripley is a queen from the get go, so if the 7 other ripley's succesfully bore living aliens in them, they would be Queen chestbursters. Alien 3 confirms what kind it is. The Cruentus (talk) (Contribs) 03:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
Counterpoint: Ripley 7 had a scar on her chest identical to Ripley 8's, which meant they definitely took something out. If the creature inside was a faulty specimen, why bother extracting it? Also, when the group found Purvis in the lab, the other hosts were scattered about the floor with their chests burst open. That hardly seems like a controlled, scientific environment to me. Furthermore, Purvis's chestburster hadn't been born yet, meaning the others had been born very recently; and judging from the mess, it probably happened in the chaos after the Xenomorphs' escape. Another point: there were at least 10 Xenomorph pens visible in the lab, but they were packing them 3 to a cage. Why do that if they only had to house the aliens from the cargo? I did rewatch the cargo delivery and egg scene again, and I counted eight victims including Purvis (so that was my mistake when I said six), but that still doesn't disprove my point. Seven drones (eight if Wren was including Purvis's) and one Queen does not equal 13 (total) or 10 (cages). Damaijin (talk) (Contribs) 02:58, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
They probably only used cargo rats at a time, and so when they got to the next batch, the chaos erupted or maybe not all hosts were kept tied to the slabs, this may or may or not be a oversight. The ones were facehugged first were probably left tied, the next batch were just chucked in the room and purvis must have been the last of them. No queen was taken from number seven. I am guessing it was either dead or it had too much human dna mixed in to be viable. The Cruentus (talk) (Contribs) 03:08, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
Are they really mutated
I'd say it's worth discussing whether or not they were really "mutated" at all, considering that any "mutation" would imply that they were *more* human in some regard, and yet their legs are *less* human than those from other movies born from humans.
Not to mention the ones from 'AvP' are identical except for minor alterations to the hands, and despite being allegedly "pure" Aliens, they have humanoid legs where the "mutated" ones did not.
Perhaps they were meant to be mutated when they were making the movie, and I know ADI has said that that was the case when they were working on the movie, and pre-'AvP' I'd have been right on board with saying they were mutated, but I'd say 'AvP' really undermines the idea.
I prefer the notion that they looked different because... Aliens don't always look the same. Aliens have had visual differences (some major, some minor) in literally every individual source they've ever appeared in, be it films, comics, video games, whatever. Xenomrph (talk) (Contribs) 03:58, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
- The changing appearance of the Aliens from film to film is something of a difficult subject, because clearly to some degree their appearance is based on advancements in special effects/the preference of the people making the film and not necessarily any canonical change. Take those digitigrade hind legs in Alien Resurrection — were they done because the Aliens had somehow changed, or were they done because the director thought they looked cool in Alien3 and could now portray them easily with CGI? We really don't know. Hell, would the original alien have had double-jointed legs if technology had allowed it at the time? Quite possibly, who can say?
- As for the Genetic Xenomorphs being mutations, technically I suppose they are not. A mutation is a change in an existing animal. The Genetic Xenomorphs did not mutate from regular Xenomorphs, they were altered fundamentally from their conception as a result of the cloning process that created them. So perhaps using the word mutation is inaccurate.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 16:09, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
- It's actually the idea of "genetic mixing" in general with that I'd take issue with, largely for the same reasons I said above. Picking "mutation" or "genetic mixing" is more of a semantic thing, really - I said "mutation" just to be consistent with this page's topic, as I figured everyone here believed the mutation was caused by the genetic mixing/cloning.
- Like I said above, pre-AvP I'd have been right on board with saying "Yeah, the Aliens are different because of the cloning process". Post-AvP, that position is a lot harder to justify.
- I also happen to be a fan of the Alien's design changing without explanation across various sources, so the Alien has basic design features that let you look at it at-a-glance and say "Yeah, that's an Alien" while still allowing for plenty of creative freedom. Aliens with satyr legs existed in the EU before A:R did it... although it's funny to note how it became a whole lot more prevalent in the EU after A:R came out. :P Xenomrph (talk) (Contribs) 03:05, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
- Ah OK, I see what you mean. Well evidence-wise, we just have to look at the Queen that spawned them — she has very obviously been changed in some way as she is now green and shimmering in color and able to give birth to live young. It therefore follows that her offspring will be different as well as they will share her genetic code. On a superficial, they at least share the same green coloration (which was not used in later films). For me, that's enough to prove they've been changed in some way.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 08:44, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
- The ones in Resurrection weren't green, they were brown. The Queen was brown, too; here's a photo of the Queen prop from the shooting of the movie. However, the adults in 'Aliens' were also pretty much any color, ranging from green to brown to red to black to blue, and the one in 'Alien3' was also brown, so I'm hesitant to say coloration means much of anything.
- Also I'm hesitant to say that the Aliens would share the Queen's genetic code if they were born the "normal" (egg~>facehugger) way. I imagine there might be some kind of genetic "filter" somewhere in the process, otherwise after enough generations wouldn't the Alien DNA get diluted by successive generations of host DNA being added into the mix?
- You're right, they are brown, not sure where I got green from! "I imagine there might be some kind of genetic "filter" somewhere in the process..." When has that ever been suggested? "...otherwise after enough generations wouldn't the Alien DNA get diluted by successive generations of host DNA being added into the mix?" Not necessarily. They're alien lifeforms. The fact they are able to somehow adopt useful traits from their host at all proves they don't operate in any fashion comparable to Earth-based life.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 12:55, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
- The constant changing of appearance is something I personally believe is ruining the looks of the Xenomorphs (Starting from A:R I mean since the Dog-Alien can be explained) the bio-mechanical look of the Drone and Warrior was beautiful, its gone now though mostly since they have a more flesh-like appearance. Warriors were not brown actually but the "ribs" and other bone or tube structures of their bodies were indeed given a lighter color so that they would stand out in the dark, Leigh is actually right about the green color in the genetic queen and possibly drones, they are indeed brown but they had a greenish tint and shimmery effect to get a more insect look, the details of this should be in one of relevant pages along with a source. The AVP ones had the fleshy look of A:R, the tail of them and a new metallic look which still does not make up for the lack of the old bio-mechanical style. The design of the AVP one is still way much better that Requiems where all you see is a bad ridged design along with heads that just flop about when they are on filmed.
- Mutation may not be right as you both say but it has been widely accepted that the Xenomorphs in A:R were affected by the human dna of ripley, what you got to remember Xeno is while normally the queen's eggs are not effected by what ever host dna the queen got, the genetic queen is altered severely to the point that her reproduction was changed. So maybe the Drones did get affected but only on a much lesser scale. The Cruentus (talk) (Contribs) 12:58, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
"The fact they are able to somehow adopt useful traits from their host at all proves they don't operate in any fashion comparable to Earth-based life." Exactly - why would we presume that the drones are automatically mutated just because the Queen is?
"it has been widely accepted that the Xenomorphs in A:R were affected by the human dna of ripley" This is exactly what I'm calling into question. Something being true just because lots of people believe it's true is a bit of a logical fallacy. :P Xenomrph (talk) (Contribs) 14:23, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
- "This is exactly what I'm calling into question. Something being true just because lots of people believe it's true is a bit of a logical fallacy." If that is so, simply provide some evidence proving everyone wrong.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 14:42, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
- "Exactly - why would we presume that the drones are automatically mutated just because the Queen is?" As I said, the queen is not really a "normal" queen for lack of a better word and her life-cycle was affected, that is not speculation or a widely accepted theory but something what we clearly see on screen and so we don't know if that "filter" worked properly. They even say something about a cross genetic mixing happened I believe but I think they may have been referring to Ripley 8, but crossings like that usually go both ways and logically should no matter how superior one thinks a Xenomorph is. However, I agree that not much is said about the drones themselves and I would very much like to have some good reliable references about them if possible. The Cruentus (talk) (Contribs) 15:04, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
- "If that is so, simply provide some evidence proving everyone wrong." That's trivially easy: the ones in 'AvP' are essentially identical to the ones from A:R, except for the legs which are *more* humanoid than the ones in A:R, and yet the ones in 'AvP' have no indication of "genetic mixing" going on. Xenomrph (talk) (Contribs) 04:07, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
- "That's trivially easy: the ones in 'AvP' are essentially identical to the ones from A:R, except for the legs which are *more* humanoid than the ones in A:R, and yet the ones in 'AvP' have no indication of "genetic mixing" going on." And yet the Xenomorph in Alien had no genetic mixing either, and looked radically different to the ones in AVP. My point being, with the AVP films in particular, it seems they started changing the Xenomorphs based solely on what they thought looked good, whereas in the preceding films (with the debatable exception of Alien Resurrection) the changes were evolved from Giger's original design with logical explanations to back them up (the Warriors in Aliens were older, the Runner in Alien3 was born from a quadruped etc). I mentioned it on here somewhere before, but the Xeno design is governed as much by desire as intent, and it seems in the later films personal preference began to supersede logic. But unfortunately that's hard to prove either way without asking the respective production team themselves (although I'd bet even if you did ask the AVP crew, none of them would have an explanation for why the Xenos have double-jointed legs, I'm guessing they just didn't think about the reasons).
- With regards to giving evidence, what I meant was this — I agree there is no evidence to prove there is genetic crossing with these Xenomorphs. However, that is what the article said when I joined this wiki, and unless we have evidence specifically contradicting it (the ones in AVP looking similar doesn't really cut it, for the reason I mentioned above) we should leave it, imperfect as it is, until we have some real proof.
- As an aside, I don't remember the novelization of Resurrection mentioning it either way, except possibly something about the Aliens being bigger, smarter and meaner, but I'd have to re-read to be sure. Maybe the script says something about it?--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 08:16, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
- "And yet the Xenomorph in Alien had no genetic mixing either, and looked radically different to the ones in AVP."
- Bingo, that's pretty much my point - the Aliens don't seem to have a set "shape", just certain specific defining characteristics. Citing their appearance in A:R doesn't prove much in light of their appearance in 'AvP', and citing the genetic mixing of the Queen is a far cry from conclusive.
- "However, that is what the article said when I joined this wiki, and unless we have evidence specifically contradicting it (the ones in AVP looking similar doesn't really cut it, for the reason I mentioned above) we should leave it, imperfect as it is, until we have some real proof."
- I disagree - I think we should edit the article to acknowledge that it's conjecture. Just because it was a certain way before you joined doesn't mean we should be beholden to it - this is a wiki, we're meant to alter and improve it. :P Xenomrph (talk) (Contribs) 01:37, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
- "Bingo, that's pretty much my point - the Aliens don't seem to have a set "shape", just certain specific defining characteristics." The problem I have with that argument is the degree to which we should accept what we see on screen as literal truth, and what is just artistic licence. Do the different Aliens in AVP mean they have a varying appearance? Or is it a result of the production team wanting a cool new look? As I said, the first films gave good reasons the Aliens looked different (although I admit Aliens' reason wasn't actually in the movie, but it holds up as logical). AVP didn't explain it at all. Which I would put down to the director or whoever wanting the double-jointed legs and AR style chin, rather than a conscious decision to show variance in the species.
- An example I can give is the new Battlestar Galactica series — the enemy space fighters suddenly changed their appearance 2/3rds of the way through the series. Does that mean they literally instantaneously retrofitted their entire fleet between episodes? Of course not, it was artistic licence, not meant to be interpreted literally. And we don't have any evidence for or against the same thing happening in AVP.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 07:47, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
The thing is, the behind-the-scenes "why" doesn't really change the fact that it happened. I'd gamble that the vast majority of the time, especially when the EU is concerned, the differences are due to artistic license. I feel that plays to one of the major concepts behind the creature in 'Alien' - that its appearance was malleable and unpredictable since it was an extraterrestrial unlike anything else in the galaxy. That's why I have a problem with people citing "appearance" to "prove" things about the creature, especially with regard to Resurrection - the appearance changes so often across myriad sources with little rhyme or reason anyway.
None of this really sorts out the problem of whether we should keep this article, or at least put a header or separate section saying "this entire article's topic might be conjecture". :P Xenomrph (talk) (Contribs) 10:56, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, given that the section dealing with the Alien design in Resurrection's making-of is called "Unnatural Mutation", I vote the page at least stays as it is until I've had a chance to watch that again and see what it says, which I will do this weekend.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 14:33, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Right, I watched the making-of. And it was annoyingly vague. It did make it clear that the Xenomorphs were specifically designed to look "more cunning and vicious" than before, but they never mentioned if there was supposed to be any underlying reason for this in the story. But then again, as I said, the whole section dealing with the Xenomorph designs was called "Unnatural Mutation", implying something other than natural is going on. But that's just a documentary title, so I don't know how much faith to put in it. But why mention mutation if it wasn't relevant?
- As an interesting aside, it seems the creature's digitigrade legs were actually included at a fairly late stage at the suggestion of the digital effects department, not the director or ADI. They pointed out that they could do them easily in CGI, and Jeunet subsequently agreed to include them.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 10:38, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm being a retard — I already posted a reference on the page a few weeks ago citing the novelization, in which Wren explains the Xenomorphs breed far more quickly because they've been genetically altered! So the book at least backs up that they are not normal (as well as explaining the super-fast reproduction plot hole in the film).--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 10:41, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm willing to concede the point that they were mutated in some fashion if the novelization explicitly says it, but I'd love to see more context of what Wren was saying (i.e., an actual quote). I don't have my copy of the novelization handy to check, unfortunately. :(
- If it's just Wren theorizing about it, it might not hold as much weight because one could argue that Wren doesn't necessarily know what he's talking about, since we're dealing with a very mysterious and (by design) incomprehensible extraterrestrial species known for doing a lot of weird, unpredictable stuff. Not only that, but the "mutation" resulting in a *faster* reproductive cycle wouldn't necessarily make sense, if the mutation is caused by unexpected human DNA... and Aliens already reproduce a *lot* faster than humans do. Logically, wouldn't human DNA slow the process down?
- Also I don't recall there being much of a plot hole regarding the reproductive time in the movie - the Betty crew shows up with the Xarem "specimens", they get facehugged while the Betty crew hangs out, watches the home shopping network, goofs off in the gymnasium, "mi casa es su casa", etc, and there's a definite progression of time as the Aliens are born and start getting experimented on (and then break free). I figured about the same amount of time passed for both Kane's impregnation/gestation and the Xarem miners' impregnations: about a day or so. Purvis is an outlier in that his gestation takes a lot longer, but I know the novelization addresses that by saying that Purvis had a thyroid disorder that messed with the chestburster's growth rate. Xenomrph (talk) (Contribs) 01:13, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
- I predicted you'd want the full quote, so I specifically told myself to get the book out and note it down when I was home last night... and then forgot to do it. Whoops! I'll get it on here tomorrow.
- Trying to argue the specifics of how human DNA might affect an entirely imaginary creature through a completely science fictional cloning process is pushing it a little :P If the novel says they've been changed and the film doesn't directly contradict it, then that's evidence enough for me. Plus, saying Wren might not know what he's talking about is kind of silly because, you know, he's the scientist in charge of the whole project and everything. He at least knows enough to realise the Xenomorphs are reproducing faster than they ever did when Ellen Ripley was still kicking around, and the fact someone specifically mentions it (instead of just ignoring the whole thing) kinda proves the intention is that they've been altered.
- The plot hole I was referring to was indeed that fact that the Xenomorphs seem to reproduce far quicker in Resurrection. Granted, it's never specifically said how long it takes, but it just feels like they birth and grow incredibly quickly. For starters the bodies of the original hosts are still lying around at the time the Xenos break out. I don't know how long the creatures were being studied before they escaped, but in Alien it took a few hours at least for the Xeno to become fully grown. Add a few hours of studying on top of that and it seems like a silly amount of time for these corpses to be left strewn all over the place. In fact, now that I think about it, that whole scene where they find the hosts makes no sense. Why are they just in a room? And why are half of them just lying on the floor? At least in the novel it was members of the science team cocooned to the wall and used to reproduce AFTER the Aliens escaped. That made far more sense.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 11:31, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
"Trying to argue the specifics of how human DNA might affect an entirely imaginary creature through a completely science fictional cloning process is pushing it a little :P If the novel says they've been changed and the film doesn't directly contradict it, then that's evidence enough for me."
Ehh... just because the information is provided to us doesn't mean we can't question it or think critically about it to see if it makes sense. Heck, that's pretty much the premise of the final chapter of the Colonial Marines Technical Manual - it looks at a lot of the Alien "facts" presented in the first two movies and says "does this make sense? If not, how can we make it make sense?". That's where the LV-426 size retcon comes from, after all.
I'll reserve judgment for when you post up the quote from the novelization. I wish I had my copy handy so you didn't have to bother with it, but I won't be able to get at it for a while. Sorry :( Xenomrph (talk) (Contribs) 23:08, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Extrapolating the evidence is one thing. Claiming the inclusion of human DNA would "logically" slow down the Xenomorphs reproducing is another thing entirely. There's not really any logic in that statement at all because DNA doesn't work like that. Humans share 60% of their DNA with the fruit fly, so logically they should be 60% similar, but clearly they are not.
- Anyway, the quote. Don't worry about not having the book to hand, I have it on my shelf at home :) To set it up, Christie asks how long it takes the Xenomorphs to breed. Ripley 8 replies, "Hours." To which Wren says:
- "Or less. The process has accelerated. Something to do with the cloned cells."
- Pretty cut-and-dry. They have changed, and it is as a result of the cloning. The fact that he doesn't necessarily understand it is irrelevant, it still confirms that the change has happened, and that it is the result of the cloning in some way. There may be other references to the Xenomorphs being different in the novel, I can't really remember, but I'd have to re-read the whole thing to be sure. One thing I am going to do is remove the word "mutated" from the article though, because that's technically incorrect.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 08:27, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with the change, mutation was probably not right word for it. We need to try and get that book/comic template to work so we source info from novels, unless there is another way to source it of course. Did you say you already referenced it?
- @Xeno, you made some decent points, the Aliens do indeed keep changing shape and design throughout the films and other media but at least in the first three films, it had an explanation (Age and host differences) and now it seems the novel has given a reason for the Genetic Drones. So this is good. The Cruentus (talk) (Contribs) 15:36, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
- That quote points out that the reproductive system is accelerated due to the cloning, but I'd almost say that has more to do with the accelerated aging they used to create Ripley (and not have to wait for her to mature for 30+ years in real-time) rather than a mixing of human/Alien DNA or something like that. I still maintain that the Aliens' outward appearance wasn't necessarily influenced by the cloning/genetic mixing (as evidenced by their appearance in 'AvP'), even if other aspects *were* influenced, such as the reproductive rate. Xenomrph (talk) (Contribs) 00:51, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Try and argue it all you want, that quote makes it clear the Xenomorphs have been altered, which is evidence enough for this article. It is also the only explanation we have for why they would suddenly look different, and that is far better than no explanation or "theories". As for why the creatures looked the same in AVP, like I've said before, someone probably saw the Aliens in Resurrection, thought they looked cool, and used the look without putting any real thought into it. It's as simple as that. They didn't put enough thought into it to ensure it made sense. The fact they never even attempted to explain it only confirms this in my mind. (I would've said the same about Resurrection, but now the novel and making-of together make it clear there was an intentional difference in the Xenomorphs, even if the film was ambiguous.)
- From an in-universe point of view, it makes no sense for regular Xenomorphs to suddenly have double-jointed legs in AVP when every film before that has shown regular human-born Xenos have bipedal legs. When you add in the fact that the only way for Xenomorphs to get that appearance before was to a) be born from a quadruped, or b) suffer from genetic alterations (apparently), it really doesn't make sense for regular, human-bred Xenos to suddenly have digitigrade legs in AVP. And then in AVP:R, they go back to planitigrade legs, despite ultimately stemming from the same Queen as the creatures in AVP, so the sudden deviation makes even less sense!
- Saying the leg structure might be a natural variation doesn't make any sense either, because it's not exactly a subtle change from one to the other, it's a giant leap in evolutionary terms. Besides, if it was a natural variation, how come EVERY XENOMORPH born normally from a human before and after AVP had planitigrade legs, while EVERY XENOMOPRH born from a human in AVP had digitigrade legs? If it was natural variance, how could the spread EVER possibly be that distinct and convenient?--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 08:14, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
"Try and argue it all you want, that quote makes it clear the Xenomorphs have been altered, which is evidence enough for this article."
It's enough to say their reproductive system was altered (which is accurate, as the movie demonstrates later on with the Queen's womb and the Newborn). Saying anything more than that is a pretty huge logical fallacy.
"(I would've said the same about Resurrection, but now the novel and making-of together make it clear there was an intentional difference in the Xenomorphs, even if the film was ambiguous.)"
Yeah, and the film and novelization are what matters. Making-of stuff would belong in a behind-the-scenes section.
"From an in-universe point of view, it makes no sense for regular Xenomorphs to suddenly have double-jointed legs in AVP when every film before that has shown regular human-born Xenos have bipedal legs. When you add in the fact that the only way for Xenomorphs to get that appearance before was to a) be born from a quadruped, or b) suffer from genetic alterations (apparently), it really doesn't make sense for regular, human-bred Xenos to suddenly have digitigrade legs in AVP. And then in AVP:R, they go back to planitigrade legs, despite ultimately stemming from the same Queen as the creatures in AVP, so the sudden deviation makes even less sense!"
I think you're misremembering the AvP movies, because the only movie where human-born Aliens have satyr legs is in Resurrection. In both AvP movies, they're back to the humanoid legs like in the first two movies.
"Saying the leg structure might be a natural variation doesn't make any sense either, because it's not exactly a subtle change from one to the other, it's a giant leap in evolutionary terms. Besides, if it was a natural variation, how come EVERY XENOMORPH born normally from a human before and after AVP had planitigrade legs, while EVERY XENOMOPRH born from a human in AVP had digitigrade legs? If it was natural variance, how could the spread EVER possibly be that distinct and convenient?"
That's easy - they're Aliens, and we're not meant to understand everything about them. They do weird, unpredictable, unexplainable stuff, and that includes variations in their appearance. This definitely holds true when you factor in the EU as well, seeing as how Aliens are depicted as having design variations throughout the comics and video games without any in-universe rhyme or reason. Satyr legs could be a natural variation *for Aliens* since they're crazy (fictional) extraterrestrial creatures that we don't, and possibly can't, know anything about. Xenomrph (talk) (Contribs) 15:02, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
- The making-of stuff is in the behind the scenes section. I'm just saying the novel (which was based on the original shooting script) proves the Aliens were different, and the making-of tells us the design of the visual aspect (also based on the original shooting script) was made to be intentionally different from the start. The two back each other up if you ask me.
- It's true, I've only ever seen AVP once, back when it came out. So the Xenos in that have normal legs? Even MORE reason the visual aspect in Resurrection can be put down to unintentional alteration. It's never happened anywhere else. I pointed out why saying it's natural variation is a silly explanation; the change occurs in every single Alien in just one particular film. That's not variance, regardless of the particulars of the species, that's an incredibly specific alteration in a very distinct group. The fact that group is confirmed as being genetically altered from the start is just further indication that what has happened is not normal.--Leigh Burne (talk) (Contribs) 15:13, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
- "It's never happened anywhere else. I pointed out why saying it's natural variation is a silly explanation; the change occurs in every single Alien in just one particular film. That's not variance, regardless of the particulars of the species, that's an incredibly specific alteration in a very distinct group."
- Unless you count the EU, which this wiki does, because then you've got lots and lots of human-born Aliens with satyr legs (most recently, in Colonial Marines) and it becomes a natural variation of the Alien, just like the 'Aliens' arm-blades, or the head ridges, or various other design changes both small and large.
- The problem isn't that the ones in Resurrection have satyr legs, it's that the ones in 'AvP' are *exactly the same* except for those satyr legs. Every body part (except for the hands, which were subtly changed) is the same, mostly because the props and costumes used in AvP are literally the same ones used in A:R.
- So if the two Aliens are identical except for the leg joints, that means one of two things:
- 1. The ones in AvP were also mutated, and somehow in exactly the same way as those in A:R since we ended up with the same result except for the legs. (we have no evidence of this)
- 2. The only *visual* aspect of the A:R ones that was influenced by the genetic mixing was the leg joints (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense - the Aliens with MORE human genetic material have LESS human legs?)
- The page has been changed so I don't know why this discussion is still continuing because there is no point to it now, mutation has been changed to a more appropriate word. To add my input though, the xenomorphs in AVP were altered, I can't remember now who said it but the person (director?) said that the predators did something to the queen to accelerate the life-cycle. The alteration in the genetic drones was not just the appearance, it was other things.
- "The only *visual* aspect of the A:R ones that was influenced by the genetic mixing was the leg joints (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense - the Aliens with MORE human genetic material have LESS human legs?"
- Yep, the director said that the Predators sped up their life cycle (and the novelization hints at it). As for color, there was a brown Alien in 'Alien3', and there were brown (and red, and blue, and green) Aliens in 'Aliens'. As for behavior, I'm not really sure they were any different from any other Alien. Xenomrph (talk) (Contribs) 22:25, June 27, 2013 (UTC)