Talk:Xenomorph

Look, can the people constantly referring to the warrior aliens as "drones"

Please look up the word "drone" in a dictionary? A drone is a fertile male of an insect colony. Its purpose is to mate with the queen of another colony to produce offspring. There is no evidence in canon that the alien warriors are fertile, and indeed the evidence suggests that the queen does not need to mate. Serendi^podous 11:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Adult Aliens weak against fire? 2

I'm sorry I'll have to bring up an old topic, but didn't the young Chestburster show rather remarkable resistance to fire in 'Aliens'? It was caught on fire, and it last rather long time in the flames or a flamethrower? Opinions? 62.248.150.20 (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Opinions on what? It didn't die right away because, well, it looks better. Funkynusayri (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct?

In Alien³, another addition was made - that of a "super facehugger" that could impregnate two hosts with a Queen and a "Commander" embryo.[citation needed] This facehugger was larger and darker compared to the normal pink variety. This would explain why both Ripley and a dog were impregnated from one facehugger. The super facehugger was found by some of the inmates, who thought it a type of jellyfish.

Ripley was the whole time inside the freezing chamber and couldn't have been infected there... isn't it more probable she was infected in Aliens inside the Research Lab before she woke up. One of the 2 live facehuggers there might already have infected her and still lived long enough to seem dangerous. Oli obk (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's original research; we can't really comment on it aside from what is shown in the film: an abnormal facehugger with abnormal reproductive habits (impregnating twice). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Appearance of Alien - Runner

In Alien³ there is another change of the Alien appearance. It has no "tubes" on his back [Giger said (on the special DVD to Alien³) that he invented those tubes so that the Alien could rest its head on them while staying on two feet. But this creature does not need them.] You can clearly see on the third movie, that this beast has no "tubes" on his back. Does anybody know why those Aliens really have them and why the "Runner" does not?

Translation of raptus

Would the intended meaning of "raptus" not be more likely to be "kidnapper" or "rapist" rather than "thief", considering the lack of a direct English translation of raptus? Both would be more reasonable translations considering the behaviour depicted in the films. Also, the producers of the Quadrilogy box set would be unlikely to have employed a Latin expert to create a tiny reference on the menu of a DVD. Pug50 (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's true, then they could have gotten what they meant wrong for exactly that reason, so it doesn't necessarily make the "translation" wrong. Xihr (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the translation is wrong, just that there are at least three possible translations of the word from Latin to English. "Kidnapper" or "Rapist" would make sense, whereas "Thief" makes no sense at all; The Alien has never stolen anything (other than people: kidnapping) Pug50 (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Termite-Based?

Well I'm still a high school kid, but over the years I've been studying this stuff, and honestly I do believe in aliens. What confuses me is, this whole race of xenomorphs is either termite or ant-based creatures. Both of them have "Warriors" and "Workers" as well as a little egg sac that they use. The queen is able to remove herself from the Egg Sac as in Termites she can't, but ants also give the proof that only one queen can last the ants a life time by herself. Therefore, I think we should not quite assume the fact these guys are one of those insect based creatures, it would just make more sense. Oh, and either way both types of insects have or had Kings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecutnut (talk • contribs) 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what your point is, but regardless it qualifies as original research. The purpose of Wikipedia is to report notable facts with reliable, third-party sources, not to invent new "facts" and present them as truth when there is no reliable basis for them. Xihr 05:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Geiger's original idea does not jive with mindless bugs

There needs to be a part of the article discussing the first movie version as a stand alone universe seperate from the rest of the series. In Geiger's Alien he shows alien hierogyphics and suggests that they had their own culture. It is also thought that the Space Jockey was created by the aliens and that they also sent out the SOS signal as a trap. This of course is before the later movie Predator so there can be no theories about the aliens being created by the Predators projected onto the Space Jockey idea. Also the Alien in the first movie is indestructible, while Ash is reanimated he says that they can't kill it. Also the first movie has deleated scenes that shows Dallas being turned into an egg, so no Queen exists in the first movie's universe. This Alien also rapes Lambert with its tail which theoretically could impregnate her, so as horrible as it sounds this is probably what happened to Dallas. 70.211.25.105 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC) tlhowell1970@gmail.com

Sorry, that's all original research. We're not here to discuss theories about fictional material, or debate what is "canon." IMO this whole article needs to be worked on according to guidelines at WP:WAF. IllaZilla (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it original research? Sources-Geiger's Alien, Alien DVD deleted scenes. The Alien in the first film is an indestructible killing machine. The Aliens in 'Aliens' can have their heads held down by humans and are crushed easily? Part of the horror of the first film was facing your certain death at the hands of an unstoppable force of evil. This idea is destroyed by James Cameron's hive, bug, queen, drone bullshit.75.197.189.99 (talk)tlhowell1970@gmail.com —Preceding comment was added at 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That you're not fond of the later movies is really neither here nor there in the context of an encyclopedia entry about the Alien across all of the movies. Xihr (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All of your statements about alien heiroglyphs and them having their own culture and creating the space jockeys et al are fan theories and therefore qualify as original research. As Xihr says, this has no bearing on an encyclopedic article about the Alien as a movie creature in general. Plus, as you seem to be ignoring, in the first film all the characters had to fight the alien with were homemade flame throwers, so of course they didn't damage it much. In the 2nd and 4th films and AVP they were attacked by marines/mercenaries with high-powered guns, so naturally these did more damage to them. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring it, it has no bearing on my argument. They are not in the same universe so to speak. First movie, no queen. Ask Dan O'Bannon the creator of the monster.75.199.64.4 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)tlhowell1970@gmail.com

That statement is obvious original research, which is why the opinion has no expression, and cannot, in the article proper. Xihr (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As a side note to the OP, "Geiger" is a misspelling of H.R. Giger's name.