Aliens, why do you look so silly?

[putowtin]

some folks put effort into aliens (see Mass Effect universe, many different species with back stories and explanations into their genealogy)

Some folks copy/paste standard ?area 51? aliens into photo shop and change their colour.

And let?s face it, we only wear clothing to avoid awkward ?look what the boss isn?t wearing? conversations.

 

[Amethyst Wind]

It's done to de-humanize aliens and make them less sympathetic. Audiences are drawn to what they can relate to, so if the aliens are, well, alien to us and the humans look human then there will be a subconscious bias to back the human side. It's a psychological ploy that is still widespread. It doesn't even have to be aliens either. Look at how many bad guys have physical flaws as compared to the good guys. Whatever makes the bad guy less approachable will, if absent on the good guy, create the opposite effect of making people more favourable to the good guy.

There are unfortunate implications with this of course, as the lesson seems to be that good looks mean good people, which is a dangerously wrong idea.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

I am put off by a lot of depictions of aliens as well. I hate the way that most of the time aliens coming from the same planet are the same. I don't mean their image (although sometimes it is), I mean that they all speak the same language, they like the same things, they follow the exact same religion, and so on. As if the entire planet is a single country (or probably a city). You can just look to Earth and see how that model doesn't work. Sure, maybe for some aliens, it could, but when a violent warrior nation somehow manges to cooperate as a single entity, despite being ready to war over anything, it strains the credibility.

That lack of diversity happens too often, if you ask me.

It's impossible to create multiple alien societies each as diverse as our own. Our own cultures have thousands of years of history backing it up, that's why a made up alien society will never feel as credible and authentic as ours. Generalized alien societies are simply one of those things where you have to suspend your disbelief.

Honestly, I'm tired of humanoid aliens period. And if they are humanoid, at least make them like 3 times our size or something.

My God SOOO much this. (I bolded the key part)

Why is it so hard to imagine an advanced (or even non-advanced) alien species that doesn't look human? I understand the principles of anthropomorphism, but a little creativity would be nice.

I know we don't have a diversity of references with which to base alien designs on (what with never finding alien life. yet.) but for goodness sake, we have millions of species on this planet we could be basing alien designs around. Not just ourselves.

Also, you're right about diversity in fictional alien cultures. In fact, the more alien species you toss into your story, the harder it is to come up with varied back stories to your species.

Though, this isn't always the case. There are some science fiction writers who have taken the time and effort to create incredibly diverse cultures for their alien creations within their stories. Granted, this often only happens with stories that contain a relatively small number of alien species, but still; point stands.

Need some examples really. Mass effect, star wars and halo have some pretty diverse aliens that look different etc.

I think what the OP was getting at wasn't just the look of the creatures, but the lack of culture diversity.

The theoretical concepts behind bi-pedal sentients are pretty much the sole reason most alien life in fiction are depicted with 2 legs and 2 arms.

1. On a practical level, a creature that stands upright with versatile limbs for manipulation and handling, are much more likely to be more intelligent then those that crawl. Why? Well apparently, the only plausible reason for a creature to diminish their raw physical power (higher centre of gravity means less stability, less surface area means less traction, less energy exerted on a charge means less speed/power), is if it uses another trait in place of it. In the case of Sentients, that would be intelligence.

2. A creature with the versatility to manipulate complex objects (eg. a Human with Arms and Hands) are likely to have higher cognitive functions then that of a creature with less versatility (A Dogs Jaws and paws). As a middle ground, the Great Apes having proven to have much higher cognitive functions then any other land mammal on earth but are still a distant second to humans.

3. bi-pedal humanoid creatures, due to serious physical drawbacks are not capable of surviving individually. Any predator that can hunt game of similar weight to the 2 legged creature will have no problems running down and overpowering them. However, this is compensated by hightened intelligence, which includes communication. This basic evolutionary edge that gives 2 or more humans an exponentially greater advantage then one viciously strong predator, is also fundamental to evolving culture. There are minutely different rudimentary cultures to be seen in different packs of great apes of the same species. Scientists theorise that intelligence promotes culture. In other words, culture isn't just a happy accident.

4. Via Culture, people changed from small nomadic pack like structures, to nomadic tribes and settled tribes, the settled tribes evolved into larger communities while absorbing smaller communities via merging or domination, which gradually formed the basis for civilisation. Through Civilisation mankind prospered to where we are now. Theoretically any other sentient life would have to face down the evolutionary challenges in a similar way in order to evolve a culture that transcends it's own physical limitations.

That isn't to say you can't have a 2/3/4 armed, 3/4/9000 legged creature with intelligence, but again there are theories in regards to the number of limbs on a creature, their function and how well they would promote intellectual evolution. As an example, I read somewhere that adding limbs to an evolving species will likely impeded intellectual development because more limbs require more brain power.

So, in short, they look human and have human like cultures, because it's the most plausible way of conveying an intelligent life. It's just easier for writers... that's about it.

Of course, all this is theory... and a lot of it is plain bullshit. Who's to say there isn't a sentient fungus somewhere in the universe. I mean, we have a fungus here on earth that turns Ants into zombies. The universe is weird.

EDIT: Plumb forgot... Orks from the Warhammer 40k universe are sentient fungi. Though they are human like again (but created by a much more advanced sentient race... who I guess are also human like).

 

[The_Waspman]

I too get sick of the depictions of aliens as 'one culture societies' (Pretty much every race in star trek) or that they're humanoid with weird foreheads. On the other hand though, You look at things like Star Wars and then you have to question how species in that evolved. Suspension of disbelief can only go so far...

You know, there was an article I read not that long ago, maybe it was a video, I'm not certain, I'll update this post if I can track it down. Anyway, this article stated that if life evolved on a planet that was similar to ours, with it's Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere and stable Yellow sun, that species would evolve in very simlar patterns to ours, with mostly superfluous alterations. This article went into much more detail than I'm able to, but the gist of it is that the OP isn't that far off in thinking that a "Mass Effect" style alien that is anatomically similar to humans isn't such an 'alien' idea.

However, all of that gets thrown out the window as soon as you get out of the physical world and start talking psychology or culture. There are so many variables and simple coincidences that drastically shape a person's, or alien's psyche that expecting an alien to behave like a human is like asking a fish to smell the roses.

I could kee going on about this but I think I'll stop and try to find that article

See, now this is something I feel I'd have to disagree with. I've read quite a few books on evolution and what I gathered from those is that the majority of evolutionists beleive that even if the exact same conditions occurred as they did on earth when life started, and I mean the EXACT same conditions, then life itself would evole entirely differently. Thats not to say the planet would be populated with entirely different forms of life (though we don't know, it is impossible for us to imagine an ecosystem without the different groupings of species we have here on earth) but its something we are in fact not capable of knowing.

 

[worldruler8]

I too get sick of the depictions of aliens as 'one culture societies' (Pretty much every race in star trek) or that they're humanoid with weird foreheads. On the other hand though, You look at things like Star Wars and then you have to question how species in that evolved. Suspension of disbelief can only go so far...

You know, there was an article I read not that long ago, maybe it was a video, I'm not certain, I'll update this post if I can track it down. Anyway, this article stated that if life evolved on a planet that was similar to ours, with it's Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere and stable Yellow sun, that species would evolve in very simlar patterns to ours, with mostly superfluous alterations. This article went into much more detail than I'm able to, but the gist of it is that the OP isn't that far off in thinking that a "Mass Effect" style alien that is anatomically similar to humans isn't such an 'alien' idea.

However, all of that gets thrown out the window as soon as you get out of the physical world and start talking psychology or culture. There are so many variables and simple coincidences that drastically shape a person's, or alien's psyche that expecting an alien to behave like a human is like asking a fish to smell the roses.

I could kee going on about this but I think I'll stop and try to find that article

See, now this is something I feel I'd have to disagree with. I've read quite a few books on evolution and what I gathered from those is that the majority of evolutionists beleive that even if the exact same conditions occurred as they did on earth when life started, and I mean the EXACT same conditions, then life itself would evole entirely differently. Thats not to say the planet would be populated with entirely different forms of life (though we don't know, it is impossible for us to imagine an ecosystem without the different groupings of species we have here on earth) but its something we are in fact not capable of knowing.

I think Valanthe was referring to something known as "convergent evolution". Essentially, if a certain niche in a ecology has a "good" model (like a wolf-like body structure for a land predator, or a streamlined shape for a predatory fish), then, biologically speaking, a species will evolve toward that. we have many examples on Earth for this (the former has wolves, hyenas, big cats, and others; the latter has sharks, itchyosaurs, barracudas, the works). Of course, on an alien planet with a similar ecology, then it really could be anything. We don't know anything about it, as the only life we know of is here. So will convergent evolution make more "normal" creatures that we'd at least somewhat recognize (or at least understand it's function), or would it be completely alien? who knows?

 

[Korenith]

I am put off by a lot of depictions of aliens as well. I hate the way that most of the time aliens coming from the same planet are the same. I don't mean their image (although sometimes it is), I mean that they all speak the same language, they like the same things, they follow the exact same religion, and so on. As if the entire planet is a single country (or probably a city). You can just look to Earth and see how that model doesn't work. Sure, maybe for some aliens, it could, but when a violent warrior nation somehow manges to cooperate as a single entity, despite being ready to war over anything, it strains the credibility.

That lack of diversity happens too often, if you ask me.

I see your point here but I've got to wonder would a truly space-faring species have need of all these sub-cultures? Our own planet's diversity in terms of language for example is rapidly narrowing and eventually everybody will probably speak the same even if other languages are kept. There are plenty of theorists who believe that in a few hundred years we'll all be speaking a hybridised form of English, though definitely I think regional quirks would stick around. Religion and ideology all being the same though... that I'd like to think would never happen to us. Diversity of thought makes life interesting.

 

[dills2]

i want the first alien race found to be talking space pandas with leather jackets and sunglasses

 

[RN7]

Stephen King touched on this in From a Buick 8. People can't handle things that are too radically different from them. Hence the crazy, but humanoid- too humanoid - looking aliens. Granted this doesn't apply to everything, but it's a nice statement nonetheless.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Spoiler: Yeah, about that

I think Valanthe was referring to something known as "convergent evolution". Essentially, if a certain niche in a ecology has a "good" model (like a wolf-like body structure for a land predator, or a streamlined shape for a predatory fish), then, biologically speaking, a species will evolve toward that. we have many examples on Earth for this (the former has wolves, hyenas, big cats, and others; the latter has sharks, itchyosaurs, barracudas, the works). Of course, on an alien planet with a similar ecology, then it really could be anything. We don't know anything about it, as the only life we know of is here. So will convergent evolution make more "normal" creatures that we'd at least somewhat recognize (or at least understand it's function), or would it be completely alien? who knows?

The problem with convergent evolution is that all animals ahsre common ancestry. All vertebrates have the same maximum number of limbs. Some may have atrophied away, but you can't have more.

So, you see lots of 4 legged things, because you can't have 6 or more legs. Now, when there was a much higher oxygen content, you had giant arthropods, but they didn't evolve to look like insect lions and so on.

Additionally, assuming convergent evolution tended to hold true like that, there's no reason why a given species would. Icthyosaurs and sharks (barracudas are related to them, mind) look much the same, so do dolphins (the tail is horizontal, not vertical), but manta rays, crocodiles and eels don't. You could just as likely get one of them instead.

 

[Vigormortis]

The theoretical concepts behind bi-pedal sentients are pretty much the sole reason most alien life in fiction are depicted with 2 legs and 2 arms.

1. On a practical level, a creature that stands upright with versatile limbs for manipulation and handling, are much more likely to be more intelligent then those that crawl. Why? Well apparently, the only plausible reason for a creature to diminish their raw physical power (higher centre of gravity means less stability, less surface area means less traction, less energy exerted on a charge means less speed/power), is if it uses another trait in place of it. In the case of Sentients, that would be intelligence.

2. A creature with the versatility to manipulate complex objects (eg. a Human with Arms and Hands) are likely to have higher cognitive functions then that of a creature with less versatility (A Dogs Jaws and paws). As a middle ground, the Great Apes having proven to have much higher cognitive functions then any other land mammal on earth but are still a distant second to humans.

3. bi-pedal humanoid creatures, due to serious physical drawbacks are not capable of surviving individually. Any predator that can hunt game of similar weight to the 2 legged creature will have no problems running down and overpowering them. However, this is compensated by hightened intelligence, which includes communication. This basic evolutionary edge that gives 2 or more humans an exponentially greater advantage then one viciously strong predator, is also fundamental to evolving culture. There are minutely different rudimentary cultures to be seen in different packs of great apes of the same species. Scientists theorise that intelligence promotes culture. In other words, culture isn't just a happy accident.

4. Via Culture, people changed from small nomadic pack like structures, to nomadic tribes and settled tribes, the settled tribes evolved into larger communities while absorbing smaller communities via merging or domination, which gradually formed the basis for civilisation. Through Civilisation mankind prospered to where we are now. Theoretically any other sentient life would have to face down the evolutionary challenges in a similar way in order to evolve a culture that transcends it's own physical limitations.

That isn't to say you can't have a 2/3/4 armed, 3/4/9000 legged creature with intelligence, but again there are theories in regards to the number of limbs on a creature, their function and how well they would promote intellectual evolution. As an example, I read somewhere that adding limbs to an evolving species will likely impeded intellectual development because more limbs require more brain power.

So, in short, they look human and have human like cultures, because it's the most plausible way of conveying an intelligent life. It's just easier for writers... that's about it.

Of course, all this is theory... and a lot of it is plain bullshit. Who's to say there isn't a sentient fungus somewhere in the universe. I mean, we have a fungus here on earth that turns Ants into zombies. The universe is weird.

EDIT: Plumb forgot... Orks from the Warhammer 40k universe are sentient fungi. Though they are human like again (but created by a much more advanced sentient race... who I guess are also human like).

I'm fairly certain the sole reason(s) behind bipedal, humanoid aliens in fiction is a combination of anthropomorphism (in both familiarity and ease of relate-ability) and a lack of imagination. The latter of which is sometimes forgivable as, and let's face it, we don't exactly have a lot of 'alien' forms to go by.

Still, I know what you're talking about. It is often easier to just create human-like creatures as, like you and I both said, it's easier to relate to and portray intelligence. However, much of what you listed is often used as an 'excuse' as for why many reported "alien sightings", i.e. abductions, ufos, etc, are of aliens that look very human-like. Not really relevant to the topic, but was just something the topic reminded me of.

Much of this line of reasoning is based solely on our limited familiarity with Earth/carbon based life. We've already begun to learn that life is far more varied, versatile, and resilient than we thought. Not to mention that we aren't quite as smart as we think we are, comparatively speaking towards other species.

So in the end, who's to say what intelligent, alien life would look like? It very well could be bipedal. Even human like. But, in all likelihood, it would be far from it.

 

[worldruler8]

Spoiler: Yeah, about that

I think Valanthe was referring to something known as "convergent evolution". Essentially, if a certain niche in a ecology has a "good" model (like a wolf-like body structure for a land predator, or a streamlined shape for a predatory fish), then, biologically speaking, a species will evolve toward that. we have many examples on Earth for this (the former has wolves, hyenas, big cats, and others; the latter has sharks, itchyosaurs, barracudas, the works). Of course, on an alien planet with a similar ecology, then it really could be anything. We don't know anything about it, as the only life we know of is here. So will convergent evolution make more "normal" creatures that we'd at least somewhat recognize (or at least understand it's function), or would it be completely alien? who knows?

The problem with convergent evolution is that all animals ahsre common ancestry. All vertebrates have the same maximum number of limbs. Some may have atrophied away, but you can't have more.

So, you see lots of 4 legged things, because you can't have 6 or more legs. Now, when there was a much higher oxygen content, you had giant arthropods, but they didn't evolve to look like insect lions and so on.

Additionally, assuming convergent evolution tended to hold true like that, there's no reason why a given species would. Icthyosaurs and sharks (barracudas are related to them, mind) look much the same, so do dolphins (the tail is horizontal, not vertical), but manta rays, crocodiles and eels don't. You could just as likely get one of them instead.

Well, eels, manta rays, and crocodiles aren't entirely in the same niche, but you're right. I was just saying that with convergent evolution, seeing aliens that aren't *too* alien isn't far-fetched.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm fairly certain the sole reason(s) behind bipedal, humanoid aliens in fiction is a combination of anthropomorphism (in both familiarity and ease of relate-ability) and a lack of imagination. The latter of which is sometimes forgivable as, and let's face it, we don't exactly have a lot of 'alien' forms to go by.

Don't forget that most actors are human. It's all very well to have a really alien design, but you have to stick someone in the costume.

An episode of Blake's 7 had an inventive jellyfish like alien species going to invade the galaxy (it was originally going to be Daleks, cause Terry Nation was running the show, but they managed to persuade him not to fuck everything up).

The only aliens you ever saw were in human form until they go killed. You never saw the transformation, just a reaction shot, some noises and lighting, and then a dead/dying monster thrashing around on the floor.

Because of this, they could make the alien as weird as they liked because it didn't need to be a costume, and was all shot up anyway.

 

[Vigormortis]

I'm fairly certain the sole reason(s) behind bipedal, humanoid aliens in fiction is a combination of anthropomorphism (in both familiarity and ease of relate-ability) and a lack of imagination. The latter of which is sometimes forgivable as, and let's face it, we don't exactly have a lot of 'alien' forms to go by.

Don't forget that most actors are human. It's all very well to have a really alien design, but you have to stick someone in the costume.

An episode of Blake's 7 had an inventive jellyfish like alien species going to invade the galaxy (it was originally going to be Daleks, cause Terry Nation was running the show, but they managed to persuade him not to fuck everything up).

The only aliens you ever saw were in human form until they go killed. You never saw the transformation, just a reaction shot, some noises and lighting, and then a dead/dying monster thrashing around on the floor.

Because of this, they could make the alien as weird as they liked because it didn't need to be a costume, and was all shot up anyway.

Yes, that reasoning applies well for live-action films. But it doesn't really hold up for flights of fiction in general. (say, novels, video games, etc) I think that's what the OP was getting at. If not, it's what I was alluding to, anyway.

I've not heard of Blake's 7. What's the gist of the program?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yes, that reasoning applies well for live-action films. But it doesn't really hold up for flights of fiction in general. (say, novels, video games, etc) I think that's what the OP was getting at. If not, it's what I was alluding to, anyway.

True, though live action stuff has left quite a mark on sci-fi in general...that's a subset of lack of imagination, though, same as recycling fantasy stuff in space...elves don't have 4 legs, so neither can eldar.

I've not heard of Blake's 7. What's the gist of the program?

UK show from the 80s about a bunch of criminals on an advanced alien spaceship fighting the dictatorship that runs the galaxy. Very rarely ran into aliens, though.

Firefly has been called the modern US version, and Farscape the modern US/Australian version.

 

[Robert Ewing]

I'm okay with how aliens are depicted.

They can't look too humanoid, otherwise other humanoids will be all like "THAT AIN'T NO ALIEN!"

It can't look too outlandish, otherwise humanoids will shout "THAT SHITS CRAZY, LOL SHIT ALIEN!"

It can NEVER be mammal, because that is too similar to humanoids.

It can't be elemental matter, that is too outlandish.

It needs to be either insectoid or reptilian for aliens to work. It's just the way our culture has grown up, we see them as sometimes slimy, bug eyed, vastly intelligent, carapace happy, aggressive, destroyers of worlds.

Personally, there is an infinite spectrum out there on what an 'alien' from any given solar system, galaxy, universe, multi-verse, mega-verse, nega-verse can actually look like... It's so vast, that even if we saw a real alien, the spectrum would not really shrink on what aliens could look like. Because it's more than likely there are trillions of species out there. Heck, some may even look a lot like us.

What i'd like to see in aliens is more flaws. Humans have loads of physical flaws, why don't aliens? Why are they a perfectly evolved killing machine super-race? And we are soft little meat sacks. For a guide on how a film got aliens right, see District 9.

 

[II Scarecrow II]

I love sci fi stuff. I'm a fantasy/sci fi gal who loves to watch and play games of those genre's. So why...oh why do we constantly get the most RIDICULOUS aliens?

I don't just meant their apparance but their so-called culture. I get frustrated when we hit an alien species in a movie or game, that is s uppose to be advanced, powerful and smart..and they look like beasts. They're naked, crawling around in steaming, narrow, poorly-lit corridors.

No..jjust...just no.

I refuse to think that a species that can manage trans-galaxy propulsion would look like something out of a tim burton movie. They would have some kind of aesthetic, some kind of sense, some kind of clothing.

I know that you want to make these things the villains...but cna you at LEAST make them look...believable? or am I way off here? Is there some audience for this?

EDIT: ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN APOSTROPHE! THERE, I DELETED IT, HAPPY? NOW STAY ON TOPIC! SHEESH! >.<

Perhaps that's why I like the aliens as they're depicted in Halo. Each race has it's own culture and backstory, which granted requires you to know more of the lore than what is presented in game, but they are more fleshed out and interesting than the type you mentioned. And I agree wholeheartedly with the language thing, which most games or movies tend to fall back to is some sort or translator.

Mass Effect is another great series with well thought out alien designs, but they are clearly based around human mannerisms in terms of language and culturem, for the most part. But as someone pointed out, since we haven't actually met any real aliens, our only basis for such design is our own.

 

[funguy2121]

I love sci fi stuff. I'm a fantasy/sci fi gal who loves to watch and play games of those genre's. So why...oh why do we constantly get the most RIDICULOUS aliens?

I don't just meant their apparance but their so-called culture. I get frustrated when we hit an alien species in a movie or game, that is s uppose to be advanced, powerful and smart..and they look like beasts. They're naked, crawling around in steaming, narrow, poorly-lit corridors.

No..jjust...just no.

I refuse to think that a species that can manage trans-galaxy propulsion would look like something out of a tim burton movie. They would have some kind of aesthetic, some kind of sense, some kind of clothing.

I know that you want to make these things the villains...but cna you at LEAST make them look...believable? or am I way off here? Is there some audience for this?

EDIT: ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN APOSTROPHE! THERE, I DELETED IT, HAPPY? NOW STAY ON TOPIC! SHEESH! >.<

I want to make fun of your spelling but I've done that to death and I suppose I've some growing up yet to do. Instead, I'll simply address your premise.

You are saying that, in our fiction, aliens are not depicted in a realistic way. To which I must ask, whom are these aliens that you've been so fortunate to make the acquaintance of?

Also, ask any other nerd, and they can tell you that there's no such thing as "trans-galaxy" propulsion, in our reality or in our fantasy. Asimov, Dick and all of the other scions of sci-fi (had to be a prick just for a second) pretty much agreed that faster-than-light travel involves folding space. Or something.

Really, though. Some examples would be helpful. Do you find Star Trek's depictions of aliens to be too "alien?"