This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2017/03/28/qt3-movie-podcast-life/
Yes. John Thomas-Mason liked Life. Funny thing is, I was going to skip it. (Long story.) Mostly, I just thought this was a more competent movie than (the very similar) Prometheus. That’s a pretty low bar though, admittedly.
To be clear, I definitely had issues with Life. Lot’s of plot holes, useless dialogue, inexplicable turns of events. I found none of it outright offensive, however. Aso I said, I kinda got red into seeing this one, so I was practicing my Zen and just going along for the ride. As such, it exceeded my expectations.
Kelly and Dingus discussed some confusion about the fate of the two capsules, and since they didn’t explicitly mention it on the podcast, did they catch the part where they were knocked around by debris?
I’d still like to rewatch that sequence, I don’t remember to what extent it would all check out on a repeat viewing and to what extent they cheated in how they framed things to pull off the “twist”, but just wanted to make sure you didn’t miss that factor.
Also, as for Calvin’s growth, it made sense to me that he doesn’t get too much bigger because he only has two really good “meals”. Calvin doesn’t have much time with his other victims the way he does with the first two.
Calvin also had a liquid lunch with the coolant. Is that why they lost contact with mission control?
I forgot that, but since I’m just making this theory up, I’ll write that off as a drink, not a real meal.
This movie was fun but mostly forgettable. I have a soft spot for any movie where a character explains that the creature isn’t evil, it’s only trying to survive. Said creature then proceeds to sadistically munch everyone.
I was disappointed when the creature grew a face. It was much more alien when it didn’t have bilateral symmetry.
Dingus, you can’t absolve a robot of bad behavior by writing it off “due to its programming” while simultaneously giving it credit for showing respect!
You cannot be serious.
Respect of hierarchy is an objective thing when it comes to his programming. Even our computers understand that, as programming gives preference to certain programs over others based upon a number of factors, even within the same operating system. The respect Ash shows for the Alien is not far removed from that, as he understands based on his programming. This creature is a purer form of life in his estimation based upon the values with which he has been programmed.
This is a wholly different quality than the nature of “evil” as applied to a programmed machine.
Now, the fact is that I am fudging a bit when I use the word “respect” above, and when I do so on the podcast. Because the term Ash actually uses is “admire” with regard to the Alien. So, in that respect, I’d have to say there is more of a gray area. “Admire” does seem to endow upon Ash certain subjective qualities I have not suggested above, so I allow that, again, there is a gray area that does not exist with the word respect. Nevertheless, I think that this artificial human can have the ability to admire, and preserve based upon programming combined with that admiration, without being cast as evil.
I just don’t see how anyone can speak of a robot as evil.
Which does, of course, lead into a whole theological argument. Since we have supposedly been created in Another’s image…and we can be evil…but perhaps that’s a discussion for another sub-forum.
-xtien
“There is an explanation for this, you know.”
My favorite Star Wars reference in Alien is when Dallas says “I’m really uneasy about this” while he’s in the air ducts.
-Tom
I like it when Mother says, “I know.”
-xtien
I could not be more serious.
I haven’t seen Life or Alien or any of the Alien sequels or The Thing or John Carpenter’s Vampires (which was a great movie, btw - “You got wood, Padre?”) but my point was that if you have a programmed being then you cannot attribute moral judg(e)ments or values to the being - only to the programmer. You seemed to be admiring the being’s qualities that you liked while ignoring its faults which I didn’t want to bring this up or anything but it seems like the same thing you’re doing with our president. I wish I had seen the movie so I could discuss this more in depth with you, but instead if you ever want to talk about how wrong Tom is about Embrace of the Serpent, I’m right here.
[quote=“ChristienMurawski, post:8, topic:129079”]
I just don’t see how anyone can speak of a robot as evil.[/quote]
If you completely deny him agency and an inner life, reducing him just a tool for the company, he’s still a proxy for evil, so I think it’s acceptable shorthand. I don’t think the movie supports that reading of Ash though. He’s an apotheosis of the Company Man, who just follows orders. And I’m pretty sure we’ve settled whether just following orders is an acceptable defense for evil.
"I can’t lie to you about your chances, but… you have my sympathies. "
This presupposes free will. And I think there’s a yawning chasm between a robot who has been programmed to be a Company Man, as you label, and a Nazi, as you shyly suggest.
-xtien
Uh. What.
-xtien
Brooski, I’ll thank you to capitalize the name of the office appropriately to the respect it deserves. So, in other words, your post is correct. But for future reference, when referring to the leader of the free world, remember it’s Chancellor Merkel and not chancellor Merkel.
I’m enjoying this conversation and I don’t have an opinion one way or the other at this point. But by that definition, Soren, wouldn’t you then argue that a gun used to murder someone is evil? Which doesn’t make sense to me because any moral value judgment placed on a gun or any tool is based entirely on how it’s used. A gun is no more inherently evil than a screwdriver or a robot, right?
-Tom
P.S. Here’s a true story. We were playing the Aliens Legendary Card Game a few weeks ago. The scenario for the first movie. When you play the game for real, there’s a possibility that one of the players is a traitor. You mix up a set of good agenda cards equal to the number of players with a single evil agenda card. Then you deal them out and put the extra card back in the box without looking at it. Did someone get the evil agenda? If so, he wants everyone else to die. When we eventually outed my friend, he calmly got up, walked to the kitchen counter, picked up a magazine and rolled it up tightly.
I thought that was pretty funny.
Sure, but there’s a difference in how human something reads. If a gun started quivering with excitement when pointed at a person, I don’t think it would be wrong for people to label it one evil fucking gun.
When you get down to it, the horror of Alien is about our insignificance in an uncaring universe. The alien is monstrous and horriffic, but it’s not really evil. It’s just a creature propagating itself. “Without delusions of morality.”
The company is evil, They’re equally uncaring, but they’re staffed by humans. They’re making the choice to treat the crew as entirely expendable. Ash is an agent of the company. He’s visibly excited when he stands outside the airlock. He has personality. He tries to kill Ripley. The reveal of all other priorities being rescinded plays as a huge betrayal.
You can speculate about the agency of androids, but the fact remains that he’s an agent of evil, that exhibits very human traits. It’s not weird for people to think of him as evil.
Wtf. And you call yourself a surgeon?!
I have “never seen” Alien in the same way I have “never seen” John Carpenter’s Vampires.
I feel like this movie could have risen above standard alien horror tropes, but chose not to at every turn.
Did anyone else feel like the creature got more generic and boring and conventional the bigger it grew? If a single cell can grow any of these things why didn’t it feast on the first human body and create dozens of these things? Or leave cell eggs behind to spore in the bodies, which kept piling up.
Also this thing survived in space for 10 minutes plus but can’t abide a low oxygen environment?
None of that makes a damn bit of sense.
My takeaway for why it stopped growing biomass was that it knew it needed to fit into the landing pod. But you’re right that a proven biological strategy is to create lots of smaller biomasses in the hopes that one survives, like how fish lay eggs. Good catch, wumpus.
Did you see Alien: Covenant? Because that’s a sure fire way to appreciate that Life could have been far worse. :)
-Tom