On 08/18/09 09:22, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> They mention that the aliens seemed to be unable to act without
> commands, like they were a hive that lost it's commander or something.
> The documentary people thought it may have been because of the loss of
> some module of the ship.

	OK. Must have missed that.

> I thought it was implied that between that detail, and the insectoid
> appearance of the aliens, that the audience was meant to think of them
> as having an insect style hierarchy of minds.

	Except that they're continually referred to as prawns, and I suspect 
prawns don't behave that way (and prawns aren't insects).

	For that matter, I suspect most insects don't either.

	And your last statement is getting to why I think it's poor SF. They 
were expecting us to assume something that most mature SF fans wouldn't 
assume. If they'd used literal giant ants, then it's more 
understandable. Even the Arachnids in Starship Troopers made more sense 
(and the movie had more explicit indications of their behavior).

	Over here, they show an alien creature that looks like a prawn, but 
we're supposed to assume it has a certain behavior that is neither 
human-like or prawn-like.

	Put another way, it isn't the *only* thing one could assume. One could 
as justifiably have assumed a totally different behavior, based on other 
cues in the movie.

-- 
As long as I can remember, I've had amnesia.

Post a reply to this message