Not Available

Perhaps the organs in the first eggs were a result of how they were created e.g. from the goo itself or a combination of this mixed with somethings DNA?  I also loved how the black goo on the outside ran upwards and became active when Kane got close and broke the 'seal', much like the Urns in Prometheus . . .

Perhaps eggs in Aliens are biologically 'simpler' due to coming direct from a Queen?

Just my initial thoughts.  Good post Facehugger :)

The Nottingham Lace interior looked amazing and was totally organic. The eggs in the sequels also appeared smaller to me. 

They lacked the completely trippy and creepy upward flowing droplet effect too!

The reasons for this? No Ridley Scott, no H.R Giger = poorly executed effects!

'The reasons for this? No Ridley Scott, no H.R Giger = poorly executed effects!'

Sad, but probably more 'on the money'  I do wonder if RS would analyse such details and think of ways to tie them together?

Its fun to speculate on this and pose maybe the differences are as Aliens Eggs are definitely  laid  and the Alien one we can speculate.

But i think its just one of those incontinuity aesthetics again and for all intensive purposes they are supposed to be the same.

"The reasons for this? No Ridley Scott, no H.R Giger = poorly executed effects!"

Or, more simply, no facehugger, no internal egg bits required.

lol "poorly executed effects"

Oscars lol.

Critical acclaim does not necessarily equal good.

Lone's point is that Ridley's eggs were organic and otherworldly and believable while Cameron's were a bit plasticky. And they were. To be fair, his facehugger attack was amazing, but the guy's imagination, while very well developed, is kinda corn fed. 

"Oscars lol

Critical acclaim does not necessarily equal good."

If you say so...

How was it "plasticky"? I didn't care for the thinner petals on the Cameron/ Winston version - but fail to see how it's in any way a bad effect.

Nevermind that the whole thrust of the thread being about the lack of 'internal organy stuff' is a little flawed from the get go.

S.M- I was referring to the eggs which contained facehuggers, for example, the one about to spring at Newt before Ripley arrived, and the very small ALIEN 3 egg which also appeared to have no internal veiny structure. Empty or full makes no difference, they had no veiny detail on their interior walls.

The A L I E N egg design was unsettling, creepy and scary. IMHO both the eggs and Aliens in Cameron's film, and the sequels, were of an inferior design, and I know many people disagree with that. They simply lost that otherworldly trippiness.

The Oscar...ah yes....Cameron's showboating Queen!

I have nothing against Stan Winston, he was a premier SF technician, who has left a great legacy. However, lets not forget the person who's design was ripped off to create the Queen! That 'headpiece' appears throughout Gigers work.

*Awaits the tearing apart of my factless, biased view!* :) 

Why would I "tear apart" an opinion? If you don't like them then you don't like them.

@Deep Space- To me the droplets appeared to have a shiny silver quality, like silver paint or mercury. Of course, that could have been caused by a lighting effect.

On the subject of lighting, none of the eggs from the sequels became transparent, or lit up when 'activated'. Kane could see the facehugger undulating inside the transparent egg walls. 

I didn't say acclaim does equal bad.

I had a similar debate with my brother over a band I don't care for recently. His argument was that they debuted to universal critical acclaim. My argument is 'So? Lots of people like McDonalds too.'

I just don't think mainstream accolades necessarily indicate superior vision. I stand by my 'corn fed' comment earlier, one of the (yes, many) reasons Aliens went down so smoothly is it's rather North American energy. One of the reasons Ridley's films stand out is their European energy. 

It all comes down to personal taste. Lone and I have impeccable taste. It's a curse!

^^ LOL it is!

Yes, I feel a whole new topic necessary with regards to American vs European director sensibilities.......

*possibility of igniting a flame war*........so perhaps not!

:D

Alien was about the creatures: Facehugger/chestburster/Xeno/Space Jockey/Juggernaut They really had to sell the scary. Get  it right. great detail...make it believable.

Aliens was about the humans ...A family story...the Xenomorphs were secondary...they had been established in Alien...JC didn't need to fill in much detail, Ridley had taken care of that angle. JC was free to concentrate on the story.

I think the different eggs show the horror versus action direction.

We have to remember in Alien they used real Organic Material from Animals and this really added to the real look of the movie... compared to Camerons Synthetic approach.

"I didn't say acclaim does equal bad."

But when it's something you don't care for - it doesn't count?

"I had a similar debate with my brother over a band I don't care for recently. His argument was that they debuted to universal critical acclaim. My argument is 'So? Lots of people like McDonalds too.'"

Doesn't seem like an accurate comparison. How often does McDonalds attract "critical acclaim" for their food? 

A more apt comparison would be the  Transformers movies.  They make truckloads of money, but the critics weren't kind.

Aliens attracted critical acclaim from critics and audience AND big box office AND got nominated for a bunch of awards and won many of them.

Doesn't mean you have to like it, of course, but there you go.

'But when it's something you don't care for, it doesn't count?'

Yes. 

'How often does Mcdonald's attract critical acclaim?' 

Never? In the case of McDonalds, people vote with their dollars. And so it was in the case of this particular band. There was better product out there, with less acclaim, and less exposure, and less success. Such is life. Anyway, universal acclaim does not render a product superior, only popular. This is especially true with art. 

I'm not suggesting that Aliens' awards are undeserved, or even that I dislike the movie, only that awards and mainstream approval don't necessarily render it a superior, or even comparable, product. I just prefer Ridley/Giger's eggs. I find Cameron's to be inferior. Aliens' awards do not invalidate that opinion.

Back on topic: The differences in continuity between films reflect the decisions of the directors and their crew, nothing more. Cameron's eggs look different because that was ok with him. There is no secret outline out there that the directors shared to propel a sub plot. Well, with the exception of now, between Ridley and Neill.

I'm glad we've cleared up what your standards are.  Double ones, even. :)

Yes, my standards are double high. Thank you.