Parker & Brett VS Childs & Palmer
Ok, two mechanic teams. Both lead by a tough, no nonsense, "just want to get my work done" black guy. Both have a rather dense white guy as the underling. And of course........both teams eventually must grapple with a scary alien creature. So how would Childs & Palmer fair onboard the Nostromo and likewise how would Parker & Brett deal with being at Outpost 31???? Which mechanic team would prevail in the others movie??? ROUND 1 rings the bell

Okay, here I feel inclined to be more explicit about the non-fiction 'The Thing' related project that I've been working on, that I mentioned elsewhere on this forum a short while ago. It's a comparative study of The Thing and Alien. Here's an excerpt: "Although Ripley is only a Warrant Officer and third in command on board the Nostromo at the outset, her ability to competently assume full command of the ship, which we imagine to be a result of both her training and her innate talents, is amply demonstrated when circumstances force her into the leadership role. She rises admirably to the challenge, despite her youth and inexperience, and the low expectations of natural alpha male figure at this point, Parker. Her acceptance by Parker is, intriguingly, attained by speaking his language: “We blow it the fuck out into space. Is that acceptable to you?” The implication here is not that Parker is given to the use of expletives, but rather that he is impressed, and indeed convinced, by Ripley’s show of strength and authority not only in the face of the ‘Alien’ adversity, but also in the face of him: indeed excess of these characteristics if we note the slight but definite sarcastic undertone in her question. Part of the reason why Parker respects Ripley is because she is able to give him at least as good as she gets. However, he also knows that this is no time for playing power games. He understands only too well the severity of the crisis which he and his few remaining crew members face. If he is to rescind his role of ‘big man’ on board, then it had better, for everyone’s sake, be to someone who can prove themselves amply in terms of his own masculine strengths, in relation to their common adversary. As a result of Ripley’s steely defiance and decisiveness, he knows he can trust her, with his life and everyone else’s, which is what matters most. Following the exposure of Ash as a robot, as a curious expression of his acceptance of, if not necessarily defeat in a perceived leadership con-*test*-('"), but of his additional responsibilities among the reduced crew, he takes the distressed Lambert and comforts her as they go to prepare the shuttle for evacuation. One would have to be extremely churlish to interpret this as a passive-aggressive remonstration against Ripley’s leadership. Indeed, the struggle against the Ash robot was a crucial ‘team building’ exercise where they acted as a united force against a common foe and following which they reached a quick consensus on their next objective: evacuate. Here, the tender, comforting side of Parker reveals itself again, for the first time since his little sidekick Brett died, as he and Lambert shuffle along to prepare the Narcissus for evacuation. And the authenticity of Parker’s humaneness cannot be doubted: he shortly afterwards sacrifices his own life to save Lambert’s. Through the course of the events depicted in ‘Alien’, we gradually come to understand Parker as a gentle giant, as a big brother, not in the perverted Orwellian sense but as a true ideal: a great big guy who is full of genuine love, humour, friendship and compassion and who would do anything to help you out. Even in the worst set of circumstances, he would put you first, no matter what the consequences might be for him…." This project is very wide-ranging and it will be done...when it's done. For the reader, it will probably be a one session thing and I hope when they get to the end of it they will think it was time well spent. Here's another teaser: "In both movies, the extraterrestrial menace is introduced to the central character group by another, largely unknown group who have already suffered the consequences of contact with this creature. In ‘Alien’, the journey of the Nostromo is interrupted when the ship’s computer, Mother, receives a signal from a crashed alien ship. In ‘The Thing’, the alien creature is introduced to Outpost #31 as the result of the pursuit of The Thing’ in dog form by two men from a relatively nearby Norwegian outpost. In both situations, the failure to determine the meaning of this interruption of normality plays a key role: it results in the entrance of the alien antagonist to the main setting and the disaster that ensues. In ‘Alien’, what initially appears to be a distress signal is suspected, following some linguistic analysis, to be a warning. However, by the time Ripley realises this, it is too late to abort the mission to the alien derelict. A language problem also results in the failure of the crew of Outpost #31 to understand what the Norwegian gunman is trying to tell them about the dog. Instead, he is suspected to be a rampaging lunatic and is killed by Garry, the commander of Outpost #31. A situation that initially appears to involve a desparate creature in fear for its life, i.e., an SOS, is again belatedly understood to be an attempt to communicate a warning across an insuperable language barrier. There is also the question in both movies concerning whether or not the main character group’s first encounter with its alien nemesis was preordained. Were the crew of the Nostromo simply unlucky in that their flight path was within range of the fateful signal from the alien derelict, or did The Company have prior knowledge of this creature and its location and deliberately arranged this encounter? If so, then the Company's treacherous actions come close to being a what we would now term a "false-flag" attack, but not quite, for many reasons, the main one being the complete secrecy with which the Company wishes for the desired outcome, should it arise. In the sequel, 'Aliens', Ripley interprets Ash’s revelations as implying that “We set down on Company orders to get this thing.” In my opinion, however, Ash’s protectionism toward the ‘Alien’ could have resulted from Company orders he received following the Nostromo’s encounter with it. Also, in ‘The Thing’, it seems unlikely that a dog, or for that matter any creature, would run for at least an hour (the length of time we discover it takes to fly by helicopter between Outpost #31 and the Norwegian base) through the desolate Antarctic tundra and, by chance alone, find another base. Did the Dog-Thing know the location of Outpost #31 in advance, and was this was its intended destination? If it was able, through the assimilation chain, to access information that the Norwegians had about the locations of other outposts, then this is a distinct possibility." XidiouX

Hmm, tough one. I'd have to say that, because I'm such a stoner myself, I'm a big fan of Palmer, but at the same time, Parker is one of my favorite characters from the Alien series, beating Childs. I'll have to go with a draw.

Here's another excerpt folks, from the Forward. Everything I've posted so far, including this, is subject to change as this is very much a work in progress. "To put it simply and straightforwardly, Ridley Scott’s ‘Alien’ and John Carpenter’s ‘The Thing’ are my favourite movies of all time. I have no preference between them. I was far too young to be able to see either of these movies in the cinema when they were originally released. Like any young boy of my generation, I had been bitten by the ‘Star Wars’ (1977) bug, in my case, at the age of six. Although I did not, by any stretch of the imagination, have well-developed critical faculties, I recognised that this was something new and incredibly exciting. I can’t say that I was consciously wondering what would come next, what would be the next major visionary step. That’s probably just as well, for when it did come two years later, I would not be able to see it, at least not legitimately. It seemed so unfair, when the next major development in cinematic science fiction hit town, that, being a mere 8 year old, I was unable to see it because it was Certificate 18. I am, of course, referring to Ridley Scott’s ‘Alien’. However, I was very much aware of the sensation that it caused and my father confirmed, on coming home after seeing it in the cinema, my suspicion that this was as significant a cinematic event as Star Wars. My frustration was compounded by the fact that, even though I had been filled in on key details such as the chestburster scene, I had no idea what this alien creature looked like. I only knew that it must be something really special to have created the fuss that it had. So, a short time after my father saw the film (A few weeks? A few months? I was 8 or 9 years old and not fastidiously keeping records) we were browsing a store which sold comic books and related material and my father found a black and white picture in a magazine for me. The adult alien. And I found it quite perplexing and perhaps even disappointing. In fact, even amusing? This was what all the fuss was about? A grey man with a big banana head and no eyes? I wasn’t frightened by what I was looking at. I simply didn’t understand it. Perhaps, in my unsophisticated, juvenile imagination, when it came to monsters, bigger meant better, and vice versa. It should have been huge, not man size, as big as a skyscraper with ten-foot teeth. It didn’t look scary. It looked strange. Perhaps, being only a child, I just wasn’t able to appreciate the appeal of its structural strangeness. And it was only a drawing anyway. And I hadn’t yet seen the film itself. Thankfully, this happened shortly afterwards (A few weeks? A few months?) Because my father worked shifts, we were one of the early purchasers of a home video recorder, which cost around £1,000 at the time. Blank video cassettes cost at least £10 and as for legitimate pre-recorded films, all of which had been released cinematically at least 5 years previously, these cost around £80. These sums will seem ridiculous by today's standards. Taking account of inflation, they would be equivalent in 2008 to £3,200, £32 and £256 respectively. As a result, the demand for ‘pirate’ videos of commercial releases was high…. …the impact of ‘Alien’, on pirate video, and later the next step – ‘The Thing’, on the same medium… The defibrillator scene which revealed the character Norris to be a thing is perhaps the scene from ‘The Thing’ which has embedded itself most firmly in folk consciousness, much like the chestburster scene in ‘Alien’ from which it possibly drew inspiration and to which it was perhaps even a direct response. We shall consider this possibility in due course. For me, however, the most striking scene in ‘The Thing’ concerned the transformation of the Palmer atrocity, with its head splitting vertically into the giant maw which devoured the character Windows’s head. “Did you notice that?”, I gingerly asked my uncle Jim in my grandmother’s house. Like my father, he had also recently seen this movie in a theatre. I asked him this question for confirmation that what I remembered having seen on my parents’ television screen really did present itself before my eyes, and that it wasn’t a dream or some other kind of delusion. I simply wasn’t sure. He confirmed, to my simultaneous horror and relief that yes, this really did happen in the film. Such was the psychological impact of this scene on my youthful mind that, although my uncle’s confirmation of it implied the terrible truth that I really did see this awful thing happen, at least it really did happen in the public, cinematic ‘space’ for the whole world to see and that this profoundly revolutionary film about which I had, after a single viewing, became obsessed, hadn't driven me mad..." XidiouX

Those are some very interesting posts XidiouX. Try to get more if you can.

XidiouX, Yes, very interesting stuff. However, I feel like my thread was hijacked. It seems like you used this thread to display your essays. Perhaps I presented it in a comical way, but I ACTUALLY DID think that speculating about mechanic team switch could lead to some interesting discussion. I was looking to compare the releative strengths & weaknesses of both pairs while also looking at their similarities and differences. But even more specifically, speculate how each would react if placed in the counterparts movie. I wanted to focus particulary on that group of characters in that scenario . So please don't take this wrong. Your essays ARE interesting. I just would have liked it if anyone actually posted on the actual subject I posted. Oh well, no big deal. No real harm done, but I just wanted to gtet that off my chest. 8)

Ok, so now............ I thnik Childs would have given Ripley even a harder time than Parker did. Childs strikes me as even more intolorant if he doesn't really trust who's in charge. Also, I think Parker is a bit more compassionate. He basically gave his life in a vain effort to save Lambert. I'm sorry but I have a hard time imagining Childs doing that. I think Childs would have figured she was beyond saving and ask himself what would be the point in getting himself killed? I come to this conclusion because he was quite prepared to let McReady die in the cold based purely on a possibility, not even a proven fact that McReady was a Thing. So I think that's very indicative of a "don't take unnecessary chances" kind of mentality. Thoughts???

Childs would kill the alien AND Ripley.

Agreed. In tight situations, Childs is most definitely selfish and only cares for himself. Parker is the exact opposite, even though he's just as intimidated and prepared against the alien as Childs is.

^Right. And likewise, I thnik Parker would have let MacReady in and give him a chance to explain himself rather than just accepting Nauls reasoningl. Now, do you think Palmer would have got killed while looking for Jones??? I have a feeling he wouldn't haven't even bothered to try to find the cat, electing to find a quiet corner and light up instead! Then he just say "man, I couldn't find him." :lol: :lol: So I guess Palmer wins that one?? :lol:

HaHa! Definitely, the pothead! :lol

Dear Zorprime, I can understand what you're saying, and thanks for your positive comments. I'm not trying to hijack your thread. Rather, I took the opportunity to point out that although the comparison of these two movies, in general, is a highly worthwhile enterprise, there's much, much more to it than the comparison of these double acts (which is worthwhile in itself, and would require a considerable amount of verbiage to fully flesh out.) To go the whole way would mean embarking on a book-length project, and against my better wisdom, well, that's something I've decided to embark on. More news about this soon, and elsewhere. ;) XidiouX