Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [SFC] "Aliens" military strategy (spoiler for film)

Expand Messages
  • druss921
    ... But they were the military on the ground, and yes company strategy may have been as you stated but I have to agree with comments on their deplorable
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 1 3:59 AM
      --- In sciencefictionclassics@y..., "Mike French" <mikefrench@e...>
      wrote:
      > Bang on! But it was a company strategy, not a military one;

      But they were the military on the ground, and yes company strategy
      may have been as you stated but I have to agree with comments on
      their deplorable stupidity in leaving the ship unmanned in space and
      the dropship landing a few miles away with all its doors open and one
      crew member wandering around sightseeing so any number of things
      could creep in and obviously did. The design of the APC left a
      little to be desired in my opinion also.

      Steve
    • jpmotis
      Considering the way hollywood and the military ussually get along, it isn t unussual for them to depict military in a bad light. Many exe. will have copies of
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 1 6:11 AM
        Considering the way hollywood and the military ussually get along, it
        isn't unussual for them to depict military in a bad light. Many exe.
        will have copies of the Sands of Iwoa Gima so they can watch John
        Wayne getting shot as a pick me up.

        JP

        --- In sciencefictionclassics@y..., "druss921" <druss921@y...> wrote:
        > --- In sciencefictionclassics@y..., "Mike French" <mikefrench@e...>
        > wrote:
        > > Bang on! But it was a company strategy, not a military one;
        >
        > But they were the military on the ground, and yes company strategy
        > may have been as you stated but I have to agree with comments on
        > their deplorable stupidity in leaving the ship unmanned in space
        and
        > the dropship landing a few miles away with all its doors open and
        one
        > crew member wandering around sightseeing so any number of things
        > could creep in and obviously did. The design of the APC left a
        > little to be desired in my opinion also.
        >
        > Steve
      • Mike French
        Druss 921 wrote; ... I m right there with you on the sightseeing bit. It was a classic wargame error; defending against what they thought was there rather than
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 1 10:38 AM
          Druss 921 wrote;
          > --- In sciencefictionclassics@y..., "Mike French" <mikefrench@e...>
          > wrote:
          > > Bang on! But it was a company strategy, not a military one;
          >
          > But they were the military on the ground, and yes company strategy
          > may have been as you stated but I have to agree with comments on
          > their deplorable stupidity in leaving the ship unmanned in space and
          > the dropship landing a few miles away with all its doors open and one
          > crew member wandering around sightseeing so any number of things
          > could creep in and obviously did. The design of the APC left a
          > little to be desired in my opinion also.
          >
          > Steve
          >
          I'm right there with you on the sightseeing bit. It was a classic
          wargame error; defending against what they thought was there rather
          than what really was. But leaving the Sulaco in orbit unmanned is a
          logical extension of the starflight technology from Alien. This is a
          universe where starships are designed to fly unmanned and with
          no life support inside them until they reach their destination. Once
          they
          get there, why leave people on board wasting valuable life support
          time? Bishop's laptop was enough to bring the reserve dropship down
          whrn needed, after all.

          And yes, the APC was a nice looking bit of kit but needed another
          foot of ground clearance and two more wheels.

          Mike French
        • druss921
          ... But look what Bishop had to do to get a link up to the ship! The reliance on a flimsy connection to the ship was a mistake, they should have had some back
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 2 3:57 AM
            --- In sciencefictionclassics@y..., "Mike French" <mikefrench@e...>
            wrote:
            > Once they get there, why leave people on board wasting valuable
            >life support
            > time? Bishop's laptop was enough to bring the reserve dropship down
            > whrn needed, after all.
            >

            But look what Bishop had to do to get a link up to the ship! The
            reliance on a flimsy connection to the ship was a mistake, they
            should have had some back up in the ship who could then make a
            decision to either go down and see why they had lost contact or more
            likely to nuke the site from space.

            Just my thought.

            Steve
          • ss1400
            ... down ... more ... I m sorry, but I disagree with you on this for several reasons. Reason 1. The military were in the movie there to provide a dumb- headed
            Message 5 of 7 , Sep 3 9:19 AM
              --- In sciencefictionclassics@y..., "druss921" <druss921@y...> wrote:
              > --- In sciencefictionclassics@y..., "Mike French" <mikefrench@e...>
              > wrote:
              > > Once they get there, why leave people on board wasting valuable
              > >life support
              > > time? Bishop's laptop was enough to bring the reserve dropship
              down
              > > whrn needed, after all.
              > >
              >
              > But look what Bishop had to do to get a link up to the ship! The
              > reliance on a flimsy connection to the ship was a mistake, they
              > should have had some back up in the ship who could then make a
              > decision to either go down and see why they had lost contact or
              more
              > likely to nuke the site from space.
              >
              > Just my thought.
              >
              > Steve

              I'm sorry, but I disagree with you on this for several reasons.

              Reason 1. The military were in the movie there to provide a "dumb-
              headed wrong point ov view" seen as so necessary in movies these
              days, someone who will be shown the error of their ways by the movies
              ending. They are essentially the same character as Peirce Brosnan's
              boss in "Dante's Peak", Everyone but Striker in "Airplane" and
              McCloud's chief. Personally, I think this sort of thing is usually
              too heavy handed and drags the thing down into farce, but that's just
              me. The lack of this type of character is one of the factors that
              makes "Alien" superior to "Aliens" for me.

              Reason 2. The military are /good/ at screwing up when they do, and
              because of the command structure, screw-ups proceed from the top
              down. Throughout history we have fine examples of military
              overconfidence leading to disaster, military incompetence leading top
              disaster, and turn of events coupled with standing orders leading to
              military disaster. Screw-ups are not frequent, but they do happen,
              and when they do they are doozies. Quintus Varius's loss to barbarian
              Goth ambushers in the time of Augustus Caesar stands out, as does
              Custer's fiasco at Little Big Horn. The Germans were often hoist on
              the petard of unhelpful standing orders left by absentee commanders
              during WWII; the Anzio assault, the Kharkov offesive and the Normandy
              landings being stand-out examples (with appologies to the allied
              soldiers who assaulted the Western Beaches and might have felt - with
              good reason - that the defense was better organised than it turned
              out to be in the comfort of hindsight). WWI Provides an endless
              parade of military wrongheadedness in the face of overwhelming
              evidence; Galipoli, The Somme, Paschendale, Ypres - a catalog of
              insanity.

              Reason 3. People /do/ over-rely on technology. It is absolutely
              believable that the highly technological force sent to deal with the
              Aliens would leave no-one at home under such circumstances. We can
              safely assume that the military vessel had an AI /at least/ as smart
              as "Mother" from the first movie, which could be left in charge. All
              through the movie we are treated to doses of the marines reliance on
              technology to the point that it compromises their ability to deal
              with events; The command is via telepresence, the commander is
              trained on simulators only, the marines focus on the motion detectors
              and not their surroundings etc etc etc. The director's cut /does/
              treat us to more of this, and if nothing else this serves to
              reinforce the notion of the tech-rich, initiative-starved nature of
              the team, at least until the chips are down and they have to cast off
              the technology that has prooved so useless (which is of course one of
              the main points of the movie itself). The trouble that Bishop had to
              go through was unforseen. Had the colony not had an uplink facility,
              no doubt the marines would have left someone on board.

              Reason 4). Money talks. The processing plant on the planet was
              supposed to be hugely expensive, as was the time and material
              invested in making the formery incredible hostile environment of the
              planet more earthlike. The first time humans went there, they
              couldn't breath the air or withstand the bitter cold. The next time
              we see humans there, it is a shirtsleeve environment. All this
              translates into money spent by powerful people. There are exact
              analogs of this situation in modern and recent history as an
              examination of the Kuwait debacle and the more current goings on in
              Afghanistan will show. Are the military restrained when working
              around rich-folks stuff? You better believe it! Things have to have
              gone to hell in a handbasket before the military command starts de-
              prioritising the politics of a situation.

              Reason 5). Ship arrives. Ripley gives pep-talk. "Good Gravy!" sez
              officer, "this is far too dangerous to send people into!" "I agree"
              sez Paul Reiser". FX of nuke hitting planet. The End. Movie running
              time - 15 minutes or so.
            • druss921
              ... A well reasoned response, I would be churlish to disagree. ;-P This is what makes this group good!!! (IMHO) Well done mate! Steve
              Message 6 of 7 , Sep 3 2:30 PM
                --- In sciencefictionclassics@y..., "ss1400" <ss1400@y...> wrote:
                >
                > I'm sorry, but I disagree with you on this for several reasons.
                >
                > Reason 1. The military were in the movie there to provide a "dumb-
                > headed wrong point ov view" >
                > Reason 2. The military are /good/ at screwing up when they do, and
                > because of the command structure, screw-ups proceed from the top
                > down. Throughout history we have fine examples of military
                > overconfidence leading to disaster,>
                > Reason 3. People /do/ over-rely on technology. >
                > Reason 4). Money talks.>
                > Reason 5). Ship arrives. Ripley gives pep-talk. "Good Gravy!" sez
                > officer, "this is far too dangerous to send people into!" "I agree"
                > sez Paul Reiser". FX of nuke hitting planet. The End. Movie running
                > time - 15 minutes or so.

                A well reasoned response, I would be churlish to disagree. ;-P

                This is what makes this group good!!! (IMHO) Well done mate!

                Steve
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.