Are Sci-Fi Movies Accurate Depictions of Aliens?

[profbuxton]

Have watched lots of scifi & fantasy movies over the years. While entertaining at times, now find myself being critical of the way they depict aliens. A lot of them appear as reptilian with big fangs and claws yet seem to be able to control complicated space vessels and machinery.
It is my contention that any aliens we encounter that arrive here in some sort of craft(FTL et al) would have to be humanoid at the very least. I cannot imagine that a claw equipped alien could fly a spacecraft or make a swiss watch. This would be the level of dexterity required and would not be possible given some of the aliens we see in scifi movies.

 

[BillTre]

The Aliens in the Alien movie (and their derivatives) were not the makers/fliers of the space craft, but instead just ate the crew.
So that one at least gets around your objection.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Why humanoid, though? As long as they have means to manipulate the environment, it shouldn't matter how the body plan is laid out.

 

[phyzguy]

Remember that movie makers are usually constrained by the need to use human actors to portray the aliens, at least if they want them to do anything complex.. This limits how imaginative they can get.

 

[profbuxton]

Billtre, yep, you are right. I would see the "alien" in Aliens as more of a parasite than a tool using /making type. Hmm, one thing about that movie I could never understand is why they would bring a new unknown lifeform onto the ship, specially after the crew member had be attacked? But that would spoil the story wouldn't it. I wonder who built the hardware for the alien in Predator( Arnies movie). seeing it pushing counter buttons with a 3 inch claw makes one wonder who/what built the tech for them.

Bandersnatch, I can't picture any of our current lifeforms on Earth other than humans having the ability to manipulate not only their environment but make and use the sort of tech we have or better with having the dexterity humans have. Maybe primates come close but still would need to be much more humanlike to qualify. Octopuses/pi have great dexterity but building tech underwater would be difficult.
.
phyzguy, yes, I understand that!. I guess with modern CGI one could have any form but would still need human like ability to use tools etc. I was always amused by the aliens in most movies. Usually just dress someone up in a lizard costume give em claws and a funny head and there you go.

 

[DaveC426913]

I cannot imagine that a claw equipped alien could fly a spacecraft or make a swiss watch. This would be the level of dexterity required and would not be possible given some of the aliens we see in scifi movies.

1] Past and current stories are limited in how they can render fine moving digits like fingers. That's a limitation of the costume technology. In books, where aliens are not subject to the costuming department, aliens have all sorts of fine appendages. Niven's fithp have brachiating trunks ending in fine tendrils; his Puppeteers have supple knobby lips, etc.
View attachment 235047

2] Remember that stories are designed to evoke a reaction in the audience. We only know (and fear) claws and other structure of Earth lifeforms - none of which have achieved the kind of fine manipulation as humans. You can't have it both ways. To evoke a deep reaction, you usually have to employ something familiar.

3] Assuming an alien that has developed intelligence while retaining giant lobster claws for hands, all it means is that their spaceship will have giant controls, specifically designed for manipulation by their own digits. Alternately,

4] Don't get caught in the anthropomorphism trap: lobster creatures have a dozen rows of swimmerets on the underside of their abdomen. Their spaceship controls might be under their belly, on the seat they sit on. Likewise, many Earth critters have highly dexterous mandibles, evolved for fine manipulation.

View attachment 235049

 

[essenmein]

To me another important aspect is the evolutionary process by which they achieved said advanced status. This imaginary species would need to be able to start in the "cave man" level of living and be viable all the way through to spaceships. So while we can imagine how you could say control a spaceship with swimmerets, given already existing advanced technology, it still leaves a big hole in how they got from not having it to having it.

Then regarding the anthropomorphic argument I raise "convergent evolution" as a counter argument, for example to have something fly in a gas (eg air) there are only a few viable ways of doing that, so a creature that fly's in a gas on another planet would not look too different from flying things here on earth, maybe the gravity and gas densities are different requiring different air foils, but they would still be wing like.

I think the reason we are bipedal with opposable thumbs is because the evolutionary process selected this, by elimination, presumably because this is the most suitable arrangement for a very wide range of activities required to get to where we are today. I would not be too surprised if advanced aliens (if we ever encounter them) have similar main features (ie bipedal, hand like things etc) because I'm not sure a different arrangement would function as universally well and survive that aliens respective evolutionary process.

 

[jim mcnamara]

1. it is due to literary license and willing suspension of disbelief, we need to identify with good guy aliens and despise bad guy aliens or the story fails
2. lots of newer authors are much better at this "human" aspect than older more technically savvy writers like Larry Niven, math major.
3. So, the authors/movie directors get positive feedback and keep on doing what works in that context.

So we get more fantasy and fiction and less science in the Fantasy and specifically SF genres, so getting upset about completely anthropic, bilaterally symmetric aliens in movies and novels, is fine. But probably fruitless as long as the extant stuff sells comics, movie tickets, and books.

Plus, in order moviegoers to identify with good guy aliens, they have an innate need to anthropomorphize the aliens. Bumblebee has a completely human body plan, and displayed human-like reactions to most things. Some things he did were actually amusing. As exaggerations of expected behavior.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

I disagree entirely about the concept that you need fine motor controls in order to create a civilization. Scale seems entirely arbitrary. A mouse has far greater precision in it's hands than we do (maybe not the dexterity, but the precision.). You just have to be precise enough in order to start making technology. Once you get there, you use technology to do your precision work for you. We work with things that need to be precise to a few atoms, we aren't using our hands to do that.

No early technology really requires fine motor skills. Level, wheel, ramp, screw, and pulleys could all be clumsily created and work well enough to make slightly more precise versions, which you can then snowball. Even fire isn't that precise, I've made plenty of primitive fires. I'm pretty sure I could do it with mittens on, given ideal materials.

 

[m4r35n357]

Hmm, one thing about that movie I could never understand is why they would bring a new unknown lifeform onto the ship, specially after the crew member had be attacked?

It is a huge part of the plot, might be worth watching again more carefully if you missed it ;)

 

[newjerseyrunner]

one thing about that movie I could never understand is why they would bring a new unknown lifeform onto the ship, specially after the crew member had be attacked?

Maybe it's been a while since you've watched it, but the android had secret orders. The crew was considered "expendable."

 

[DaveC426913]

I disagree entirely about the concept that you need fine motor controls in order to create a civilization. Scale seems entirely arbitrary. A mouse has far greater precision in it's hands than we do (maybe not the dexterity, but the precision.).

Your refutation is not born out by your example.

The conjecture is that you do need fine manipulation to create a civilization.

You've shown an example of a creature that does have fine motor skills - which doesn't support your refutation. Can you show an example of a creature that does not have fine motor skills (or fine appendages) yet could (theoretically) build technology?

That's what you would need to provide support for your refutation.

No early technology really requires fine motor skills. Level, wheel, ramp, screw, and pulleys could all be clumsily created

Setting aside the mental capacity required, do you think a leopard has the physical ability to build any of those things? See below.

I'm pretty sure I could do it with mittens on, given ideal materials.

Mittens have opposable thumbs.

And your open hand spans a half a foot. And you have highly mobile wrists. And elbows. Human arms are essentially specialized to work with a dorso-ventrally-flattened body plan that facilitates us manipulating things in front of our eyes.Oh, and off-topic: cats have a great deal of difficulty seeing things close up.

"Those huge eyes and pupils keep them from being able to focus clearly on anything closer than about 10 inches (25 centimeters) away, and by 4 inches (10 centimeters), all the squinting in the world won't let them see the object."
https://curiosity.com/topics/theres...he-treats-you-put-in-front-of-them-curiosity/

 

[newjerseyrunner]

I agree that a human with mittens on is still more dexterous than most animals, so I'll concede that, but going off of this.

Setting aside the mental capacity required, do you think a leopard has the physical ability to build any of those things? See below.

Which of those primitive technologies do you think it could not produce? Let's remove all of the variables about evolution and mental capacity, and simply put your brain in the body of a leopard. Let's also modify the body of the leopard slightly so that it can more easily stand or sit on it's hind legs and use two arms. Let's crossbreed the leopard with a kangaroo. Also, give them our eyes, after all, I never said any animal could do it, just that it doesn't require fine motor controls. You are still you in your mind, you still have all of your problem solving skills, food and water is provided for you, you have a fairly large workforce that will do what you say because you're their pack leader, and you have nothing but time. Could you build these things? I see stumbling blocks, but I also see clever ways around them.Lever - This is purely an intellectual thing, it's just a pivot and a stick. A human brain in a leopard's body could use a lever to move large objects. or produce large forces.

Wheel - Looks like the earliest wheels were literally just cut logs. So you'd have to first produce an axe. Hmm... That's a tricky one, but if you already have a lever, you could break rocks into an axe head (lets say we live around a ton of flint.) It may not be as precise as what humans could produce, but I think it's doable, and again, it just has to be crude. I see no reason that I wouldn't be able to rig something up without really needing my hands. A big stick with a heavy axe on one end and a pivot an the bottom, I could control with just my forearms. It might take takes or weeks to cut one log, but that's fine.

Ramp - Again, easy, just requires the mental capacity to think of it.

Screw - It's just a ramp and a wheel, I think if you can get the wheel, you can get here.

Pulley - If you have a wheel and the mental capacity, you have a pulley. You need a cord, but nature provides a lot of those. I could use my forearms and teeth to braid, I could probably even do a really good braid with two leopard people.

Fire - Most of our techniques are out, but, I still think it's doable. A pump drill does not require a lot of precision to make or use, and if you have the pulley technology, you can build it. Once you have fire, you have metal.I think progress would move significantly slower than humans, but I can't think of an early technology that couldn't possible be produced without hands. Things would go slowly, but what if you have nothing but time? You could certainly do agriculture without technology, paws are better for digging than hands. You could construct flimsy walls, birds do that with just their beaks. I think once you can produce the most primitive machines, and you have the culture and mental capacity to pass down and improve on the sum of your species knowledge, the possibilities are unbounded. Each generation uses the previous generation's technology to make the next generation's technology which will be slightly more precise, until you go all the way to the atomic level. It's not a sure thing by any means either, even humans could have very easily just gone backwards and gone extinct, that a very possible solution to the Fermi Paradox. Without WWII, we may not even be a space-faring, digital, nuclear civilization right now, technological progress tends to come in fast bursts due to extreme circumstances. I'm not saying it's likely, I'm saying it's not impossible, and we all know that

 

[DaveC426913]

Let's also modify the body of the leopard slightly so that it can more easily stand or sit on it's hind legs and use two arms.

Not so fast.
As pointed out, our fine dexterity for manipulating things extends beyond just our hands. We have highly mobile wrists. And elbows that facilitate holding things close to our vision. Our leopard will have quite a bit of difficulty holding on to even the most basic tool without the opposable-thumb/wrist/elbow combination.

you have a fairly large workforce that will do what you say because you're their pack leader, and you have nothing but time. Could you build these things? I see stumbling blocks, but I also see clever ways around them.

You attempt to set up an ideal unrealistic situation and then call it plausible.
In a real world situation, they must contend with actually surviving while they innovate.

Without the distinct advantage of a natural ability to manipulate precision items, they will have to choose between eating and creating.

Wheel - Looks like the earliest wheels were literally just cut logs. So you'd have to first produce an axe. Hmm... That's a tricky one, but if you already have a lever, you could break rocks into an axe head (lets say we live around a ton of flint.)

How is our leopard going to hold a rock to knap the flint? That is a technique that requires precision skill.

It may not be as precise as what humans could produce, but I think it's doable, and again, it just has to be crude.

Given an unlimited amount of fee time and resources. Which is not plausible.
(If they did not have survival drivers, such as starvation, they would not be driven to evolve.)

Evolving animals have a limited energy budget, and they must "choose" a strategy. The human path was tool innovation, and if they didn't have an advantage at it, they would have perished from wasting their energy budget.

I see no reason that I wouldn't be able to rig something up without really needing my hands. A big stick with a heavy axe on one end

An axehead that took so long to invent that half their tribe perished due to the diversion of resources.Look, so far you've gifted them with

• unlimited time,
• unlimited food,
• unlimited manpower (leopardpower) and organization,
• unlimited brain power
• predisposed body plan (our eyes, our ability to squat, our ventrally flattened body, our wrists, our elbows),
• no survival pressure that forces them to choose a niche, while at the same time...
• some unknown evolutionary driver to innovate

In short, you've gifted them with every possible advantage, and dropped them into the Garden of Eden.

And then concluded that it's plausible that, without fine digits, they could make a civilization.

Sure. With those assets, I'd say a bag of hammers could make a civilization too.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Very interesting points, many things I'd not considered.

Let's change the thought experiment. Remove the leopards because it's too confusing. Just people without hands. Assume that by some evolutionary catastrophe, humans have stumps where our hands and feet should be. No wrists, nothing, our limb ends at the end of the forearm. I'll also define a setting: The Nile Delta, 8000 years ago. So equal playing field to us.

I'm 100% sure you could create a pump drill and get fire. Might take a very long time, but hell, it probably took humanity thousands of years anyway. So we'd likely settle around the rivers around camp fires just like we did. Someone figures out that if they plant seeds in the ground, they can grow crops. I don't think it takes any tools to do that. There's your unlimited food supply and the reason you have people who can innovate rather than spending every second of the day trying to just survive. It actually becomes a necessity because you need people to just keep track of everything, administration comes with expanding villages.

The evolutionary pressure to innovate would likely follow a very similar path to our own, our crops may dry we'll need to figure out how to get it around. We'll have to figure out how to harvest, process, and store food in bulk. Without our fine motor skills, they'd be even more reason to innovate faster ways to doing that. And you'd still have what's arguably the driving force is most human innovation: war. Lots of these little villages will spring up and some of them will have bad crop seasons and lots of starving people, raids become inevitable, and the arms race provides the evolutionary pressure to innovate.

Your thoughts on the flint got me, and it took me a while to figure it out, but hear me out. Take a broom and put it under your leg. Try to hold it between your forearms and try to just tap something. It's awkward, but totally doable. Now imagine a small stone attached to the top of it, and the piece of flint you are working on laying onto of some hard sand and pinned down by a heavy rock. It'd certainly take a long time, but an ancient samurai sword could take several weeks to be produced, so I don't think it's unreasonable to have one guy in your village who does nothing but makes stone tools day in and day out, resulting in hundreds or thousands of them over several generations.
I'd also like to point out that in terms of hospitality, humans in Mesopotamia 8000 did find themselves in one of those best case scenarios. We civilized many places but would it have really exploded without those fairly ideal situations? Food grew everywhere, water was everywhere, climate was mild, and there were few predators. I contend that civilization is ALWAYs based on lucky circumstances. Humans would still be alive if the last ice age had not receded, but we wouldn't be driving buggies on the moon.Interesting concept.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'll also define a setting: The Nile Delta, 8000 years ago. So equal playing field to us.

IOW, you've given them all the cheat codes at game-start:

- 3000 years of agriculture: free
- between 230,000 and 1,500,000 years of fire building: free
- over two million years of tool building: free.

By 6000BC, humans had been pursuing the "tool" strategy - at the expense of speed, strength, enhanced senses, etc - for millions of years already.

 

[chasrob]

The Aliens in the Alien movie (and their derivatives) were not the makers/fliers of the space craft, but instead just ate the crew.

They ate the crew in the original Alien movie? Did not know that. Weren't they on their own starship, landed on that planet (I forget the name)?

 

[DaveC426913]

They ate the crew in the original Alien movie?

Not ate, but used as host.
That is why the "Space Jockey" scene is so significant.

He has a hole punched out of his chest.

 

[Dr Wu]

Of course, there's no reason to suppose that spacefaring alien intelligences need to be purely biological creatures in the first place. An ET equivalent of a cyborg is more than feasible here. This evolutionary shift opens up all kinds of interesting possibilities - for instance, who or what needs hands, tentacles or mandibles when you can have wifi? Anyone for telekinesis?

 

[gmax137]

The idea that alien lifeforms somehow "must" be bipedal, bi-laterally symmetric beings, with opposable thumbs strikes me as being as naive as assuming the Earth is the center of the solar system, or that mankind is somehow the pinnacle of evolution, the species towards which all earlier life was striving.

I think it is far more likely that the alien visitors will have a completely non-human form, with incomprehensibly different motives, thoughts, and emotions.

 

[DaveC426913]

The idea that alien lifeforms somehow "must" be bipedal, bi-laterally symmetric beings, with opposable thumbs strikes me as being as naive...

Certainly.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here is my conjecture: They will look neither humanoid nor monstrous; they will look comical.

Because humans are so prone to pareidolia, we will see, in an alien life form, things we are used to identifying.

So:

While it'll be physiologically alien like a Horta, it'll have two black patches (sex organs) on its dorsal shell - and a long line of dots across its front edge (99 eyes), but what we'll see is a giant round Panda's face shuffling around.

Or:
Its generally upright structure will have an anterior brain hump midway up. Coupled with the fan-like ears at thevery top, it will look for all the world like a 19-century biddy with a busrtle in her butt and a parasol. But walking backwards.

We will zero in the the Earthly aspect and not be able to unsee it - even though, on this alien creature, it is completely wrong.

 

[AgentSmith]

An alien with an octopus-like form with many appendages could evolve into a tool user and tool-maker. At least some of the appendages would have to have some strength, others extreme dexterity.

 

[DaveC426913]

An alien with an octopus-like form with many appendages could evolve into a tool user and tool-maker. At least some of the appendages would have to have some strength, others extreme dexterity.

Like the fithp from Niven's Footfall.
Pachydermoid critters with binary-brachiated trunks.

I created an octopoid character for a sci-fi RPG that was vertically pseudo-symmetrical - just a body with binarily brachiating tentacles out top and bottom.

 

[Nik_2213]

IIRC, Brin's 'Uplift' tales include a snarky species of now-sapient 'former riding animal'. They have scant dexterity, rely on voice control of advanced robotics gifted by their sponsor.

The 'EarthClan' take was to provide their dolphins and orcas with voice-control stuff and optional harnesses with manipulator arms ('Waldos')...

 

[AgentSmith]

Like the fithp from Niven's Footfall.
Pachydermoid critters with binary-brachiated trunks.
View attachment 237656

I created an octopoid character for a sci-fi RPG that was vertically pseudo-symmetrical - just a body with binarily brachiating tentacles out top and bottom.

A great novel by great authors. That fifthp was integrated into the Climbing fifthp

 

[DaveC426913]

the Climbing fifthp

What's that? A book I haven't read?

 

[gleem]

Does anybody remember the TV series "V", early '80's. Reptilian like aliens disguised as humanoids arrive with seemingly good intentions.

 

[DaveC426913]

Does anybody remember the TV series "V", early '80's. Reptilian like aliens disguised as humanoids arrive with seemingly good intentions.

I remember it though I did not watch it.
I was in my anti-TV phase.

 

[256bits]

Well if there is aliens out there I think whatever they look like at birth won't be what they look like in the adult stage.
Some of our favs of old got it right, such as My Favourite Martian - why carry around a silly dumb cell phone - just attach the antennae to the brain and download and communicate directly rather than through secondary sensors and manipulators such as eyeballs, ears and fingers.
Don't have a useful thumb or tentacle to grab hold of objects - why we can genetically engineer and grow you one.
Technological adaptation for the tasks at hand.
The idea of super soldier is out there in human "fantasy" land, so the intelligent aliens might dispose of any ethical or moral issues and create the super astronaut and space explorer. Certainly, one could contemplate that lobster look-alike as having an operation to remove the clumsy ( it does sound as if there should be a "b" in there ) big claw, just as easily as we have an operation to remove our appendix, or have plastic surgery for appeal

 

[NunoFernandes]

(...)I cannot imagine that a claw equipped alien could fly a spacecraft or make a swiss watch. This would be the level of dexterity required and would not be possible given some of the aliens we see in scifi movies.

Hi there :)

Well, one cannot say that, because the instrumentation would be engineered to the specific phisical traits of the alien itself.
Species evolve in different ways, and as such, technology will follow.

Remember, "ants and a highway".

 

[AgentSmith]

What's that? A book I haven't read?

In Niven and Pournelles Footfall , the Climbing fifthp is what the science fiction writers group ends up calling humanity. Climbing as in ascending, rising, etc.

 

[Dr Wu]

Another interesting take on aliens is having them related - distantly or otherwise - to human beings. Larry Niven is good at this too, one example being Protector. By casting the 'alien' Pak species as distant ancestors of modern humans, in this instance via Homo habilis, Niven sets up an intriguing (and completely convincing) backstory, as well as offering a mordant commentary on the predatory natures of our own species. I can't think of any examples of this kind of thing done on film, but there must be a fair number, I wouldn't mind betting.

 

[DaveC426913]

Another interesting take on aliens is having them related - distantly or otherwise - to human beings. Larry Niven is good at this too, one example being Protector. By casting the 'alien' Pak species as distant ancestors of modern humans, in this instance via Homo habilis, Niven sets up an intriguing (and completely convincing) backstory, as well as offering a mordant commentary on the predatory natures of our own species. I can't think of any examples of this kind of thing done on film, but there must be a fair number, I wouldn't mind betting.

One thing that I've always had trouble with though, is the fact that Earth has produced a plethora of critters that are genetically almost identical to humans, yet started independently 3.5 billion years earlier. How can we be an alien race on a planet that is, genetically, our creche?

That's one aspect you just can't look at too closely or it all falls apart.

 

[Dr Wu]

One thing that I've always had trouble with though, is the fact that Earth has produced a plethora of critters that are genetically almost identical to humans, yet started independently 3.5 billion years earlier. How can we be an alien race on a planet that is, genetically, our creche?

Yes, I take your point, and I'm bound to say that I've never considered it until now. One instance where Protector gets it wrong concerning our common genetic inheritance is particularly telling. This occurs when one of the novel’s leading characters speculates whether Phssthpok (the novel’s by now-deceased Pak antagonist) would have gone on to deliberately infect the chimpanzees in the Congo with ‘tree-of-life’ — that’s to say, the plant-based virus which initiates the Pak into their final evolutionary stage: aka the ‘protector’ end-phase’ — a sort of living breathing proto-Terminator? The point here is that the split between chimps and the line that eventually lead to us humans occurred long before Homo habilis arrived on the scene. This inconsistency in turn prohibits any idea of H hablis possessing its own unique set of trans-Terran genes. Therein lies the problem.

As a side note: one possible workaround to explain away the restrictions implied by a local genetic inheritance would have been to introduce a Panspermian element into the story. Why not? After all, the only biology we presently know about is what exists down here on Earth. We have yet to discover a single alien bacterium, never mind a full-on spacefaring ET civilisation. Yes, of course, it’s hard to imagine any space-based biological flotsam, along with its delicate genetic coding, surviving the shooting gallery which is the interstellar medium. Still, in our present state of unknowingness-for-sure, this to my way of thinking is exactly where science fiction should step into the breach.

There’s not a whisper of any of this in Protector, of course.* So it can’t be used as a justification. All I can say in the novel’s defence is that it was (if memory serves me well) first published in shortened form back in 1967, and we’ve come a long way since then. Even so, for me at least, it still continues to punch above its weight. I especially enjoy the way it taps into our creation myths, theogonies, and the like, which here can range from Genesis to Olympus — an incessant War in Heaven waged by truculent and motivationally programmed gods, as it were.

I feel much the same way about other venerable SF novels: Out of the Silent Planet, for example. The most kindly thing that can be said about CS Lewis’s understanding on orbital mechanics is that it was, well, sketchy in the extreme, and that’s putting it mildly. But it’s still a cracking good read, full of interesting ideas about alien life (yes, okay) on Mars, and how, to cite one example, all three Martian races evolved to cope with the varying density levels contained in the planet’s tenuous atmosphere column.

So both novels, and many others like them, have their share of inconsistencies, for sure. It’s just that, depending on their content, I tend to take a more charitable view about them than some. Indeed, it’s possible to argue that these inconsistencies are often a sign of speculative fiction going out on a limb, and doing so productively. And if the writing is good and fulfils its brief, then that usually gets my vote.

Otherwise, I agree entirely.

* Actually, there just might be: Phssthpok recalling something about the fabled 'starseeds'? Or have I got the wrong book?