The Alien Quartet: Bloomsbury Movie Guide No. 4 by David Thomson (book review).
The Alien Quartet: Bloomsbury Movie Guide No. 4 by David Thomson is the book referenced by Roz Kaveney in her work From Alien to The Matrix: Reading Science Fiction Film, and I decided to give it a look, especially considering the errors in Kaveney’s book.
For those curious, the first three books in the Bloomsbury Movie Guides series weren’t focused on science fiction. From what I can gather, the later books weren’t either, as they were released over 25 years ago.
In his introduction, Thomson shows he has some knowledge of the history of the Alien film series, but it’s odd that there’s no reference to A.E. Van Vogt in the index, especially given the legal issues involved.
The problem with writing any book about films is whether you’re merely copying others’ opinions and mistakes or if you’ve thoroughly watched the film multiple times to ensure accuracy. You don’t necessarily have to draw similar conclusions, but if you weren’t around when the original film was released, you’d need to consider the opinions of those who were.
The errors begin to mount in the opening chapter on Alien. The Nostromo is inaccurately described as a “shuttle” when the film clearly states it’s a towing vehicle. It’s not as if there isn’t already a shuttle on board, primarily for the Captain. Additionally, the scene where Brett meets the xenomorph takes place in the landing gear of the Nostromo, not a cooling tower. Kane doesn’t use a probe when looking into the opened egg—that came much later in the sick bay with Ash and Dallas. When Thomson discusses Kane in the sick bay, it becomes evident that he watched the standard version of the film, not the extended version, although few owned the laser disc version at the time. Thomson is unclear about what LV-426 is, although it’s clearly described as a planetoid, a small planet. Ripley stripping down to go into hibernation corresponds to what they wore when woken at the start of the film. It was just a bonus that it made it easier to get into the spacesuit. Equally, he must have missed an interview with director Ridley Scott, who explained that the plot is essentially a “seven little Indians” haunted house story.
Regarding Aliens, Thomson incorrectly states in the interlude between chapters that Jim Cameron approached Brandywine to make the sequel, not the other way around.
The errors continue to accumulate. For instance, Newt’s surname is given as “Jordan” instead of “Jorden”, a common mistake. Even considering the available literature up to 1998, Thomson’s bibliography consists mainly of magazine articles rather than any of the books available at the time. He mentions the laser extended edition but clearly didn’t have access to it, and the special edition wasn’t on DVD until 2000. To show I’m paying attention, here are some notable mistakes: Van Leuen was not a doctor. Thomson fails to identify Drake as the marine holding Hudson’s arm during Bishop’s knife game, despite identifying him earlier on the same page. A “stand-up fight” doesn’t necessarily mean fighting humans, while a “bug hunt” refers to searching for creatures. Thomson is wrong to suggest that humans had previously encountered extraterrestrials. Even today, there is still some confusion about whether the Predator hunters exist in this universe, but that debate didn’t arise until after this book’s release. The dropships are consistently misidentified as “shuttles.” By the time Thomson wrote this book, the facehuggers already had that name, even in the literature he consulted. The marine who brings supplies to Bishop while inspecting the dead facehugger is not Gorman, despite Thomson’s assertion. Thomson seems to believe the dropship returned to the Sulaco, which it didn’t—hence why it had its own stowaway. He also misses the fact that Burke turns off the camera monitoring Ripley and Newt, not just turns away. Thomson describes the emergency lighting as infrared, which would generate considerable heat; emergency lights are typically red to allow the eyes to adjust to low lighting. He also fails to note that it is the queen xenomorph pursuing them up the lift. You couldn’t possibly confuse her with her offspring. I’ve probably skipped a few other errors, but I’ve highlighted enough to show that hardcore Alien fans could likely find even more.
Does it get better with Alien3?
Thomson’s errors continue to pile up. Ripley’s bloodshot eye was caused by being broken out of stasis, not by a facehugger, nor were there any marks on her face that would have indicated such an encounter. The xenomorph on Fiorina Fury 161 originated from a cow, not a dog. The queen alien didn’t decide to leave a facehugger capable of producing a queen egg with Ripley; as I’ve explained in my own articles, it’s logical that without the egg sac, the queen could still generate a couple of eggs, including one that could produce a successor. Lines from earlier Alien films, as with Predator, often appear in successive films with different interpretations. This chapter, at 17 pages, is the shortest in the book, but at least Thomson’s mistakes remain consistent.
Finally, we get to Alien: Resurrection. Here, Thomson becomes fixated on why the human Bishop didn’t clone Ripley earlier, considering the technology available. Given the seven failures on the Auriga, it’s unlikely this was the first attempt at cloning, and failures are common in cloning processes, especially when waiting for improved technology. Instead, Thomson inserts chapters that have nothing to do with the film, and I’m surprised his editors didn’t prune them out.
Keeping the failures alive rather than cremating them all has some scientific justification, primarily to observe their longevity and what can be learned from them. The fact that Ripley had attributes of the xenomorph mixed with human suggests something went wrong with the genetic mix, and it’s even more unique that the xenomorph DNA could duplicate memory—otherwise, why did Gediman try to teach this Ripley after keeping her alive post-queen xenomorph removal?
Having an old spaceship like the Betty still in use makes sense; pirates wouldn’t want a brand-new spacecraft when conducting illegal activities. It’s also unregistered, allowing it to stay off the grid. The same applies to them using cash instead of credit, to avoid being tracked. I can also justify why the clone Ripley is as old as the original: it’s the state she was in when blood and other samples were taken from her by Clemens. As to why these xenomorphs can spit acid, like Ripley, they are hybrid human/xenomorph species, which also explains why they are much more intelligent.
Much of Thomson’s synopsis is fair to the film, but only because it’s so brief.
As you can tell, there’s a lot wrong with this book. The only real benefit is the decent selection of 12 black-and-white glossy photos. After 25 years, I doubt the publisher or Thomson would be interested in my review or comments, but this is clearly not an accurate book. It relies too much on synopses rather than accurate observation. Oddly, the most insights come with Alien: Resurrection, and even those are flawed.
I certainly wouldn’t use this book as a guide to the Alien films, largely because too many misidentifying errors indicate a lack of attention and research. There’s a difference between watching and really watching, which we reviewers have to do—often with a notepad and keyboard to note things as we watch.
GF Willmetts
July 2024
(pub: Bloomsbury, 1998. 194 page illustrated indexed small enlarged paperback. Price: £10.99 (UK). ISBN: 978-0-74753-803-5)
