• Best of the Alien Quadrilogy
    187 replies, posted
[QUOTE=gnome;21988584]Why does everyone seem to think Aliens was an action film? I don't see the action. There's one scene where a bunch of marines are helplessly slaughtered and one scene where Ripley fights the queen. The rest was fairly slow and suspenseful.[/QUOTE] Because it was. James himself said it was made to be like that and not as horror based as Alien because he didn't want to make a remake of it. Sure, comparing Aliens to something from Michel Bay is probably pushing it. Comparing it to Alien however and it's quite clear. You have to understand how it was back when it first came out. Aliens was marketed completely different than Alien, in that it was marketed as an action based movie and not pure horror like the first one. Right from the start they wanted everyone to be aware it was [b]not[/b] going to be like Alien, hell the movies selling line was "This time, it's war". If I recall correctly. To say Aliens is buddy buddy with Commando or something is out of the question, however to say Aliens was an action film compared to the first one is quite within acceptable levels, as I have said already, It was supposed to be one.
I suppose in comparison to the first one, but I think really they were just avoiding doing the same thing again with a singular alien hunting a bunch of people down. It made more sense to take it down a different path.
Alien was awesome, but sadly when I rented Aliens (because I'm too cheap to buy movies) it did not work.
I really liked all the technology they showed in the second, the APC and guns were just awesome, it's inspiring really.
[QUOTE=Random112358;21985465]I find the problem with Alien is that it spends way too long setting the scene and then it is over with way too quickly. When people start to get killed off it happens too quickly and I find it devalues the character and destroys the suspense. With Aliens I have one problem, Newt... Most annoying character ever and ruins what should be a perfectly good action film. Like the whole 'they mostly come out at night, mostly' line annoys me. Also the whole story about Burke (if that is his name, been a while since I watched it) wanting to take an alien back home seems to be downplayed too much. Could of had a great bit of suspense where you know someone has different motives but not know who it is yet. Although they are both still fantastic films just a few things in them that annoy me.[/QUOTE] It seems like that's more of a problem you have connecting with characters than any problem of the films. And that's just a James Cameron thing. He likes really, really, [I]really[/I] obvious corporate villain characters. [editline]10:00PM[/editline] [QUOTE=gnome;21988584]Why does everyone seem to think Aliens was an action film? I don't see the action. There's one scene where a bunch of marines are helplessly slaughtered and one scene where Ripley fights the queen. The rest was fairly slow and suspenseful. And as for James Cameron "destroying" the concept of the alien, I don't really get where you're coming from with that. The alien was always an infectious bug-like creature, the only reason I can think of in the first alien that it carefully picked off crewmember after crewmember was because it was the only one there, and the crew didn't have any weapons besides a flamethrower. [editline]12:43PM[/editline] I haven't seen that cut, why was there an ox on Fury 151? And what else changed about the story?[/QUOTE] Hnngh. No. It was never supposed to be a bug. It was supposed to be a weird ass corrupted human. Sort of like an intelligent zombie, if you understand me. Still human, but thinking on the level of a predator. But by the end the thing was supposed to be equal in intelligence to humans. In the original ending it kills Ripley, and then radios a message back to earth in her voice. And no, the thing was supposed to be completely invincible. That's where the horror element comes from, the fact that it's completely unstoppable.
Don't like aliens for what it did to the creature itself. Scorpio said it already though.
You know, now that I think about it, what bugs me most about Aliens is that, if forced to, you could do more things with the Alien concept. And with the right director, it could have worked really well. But James Cameron just isn't a good psycho horror kind of guy. He's at his best as an action director. But when subtext is involved, he really drops the ball. Though I'd be lying if I didn't say the thing that makes me angriest is that he's just a fucking egomaniac dick who can't take a shred of advice even when it's from someone infinitely more competent in the field he's working in. Asshole. [editline]10:08PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Agent.Orange;21991415]Don't like aliens for what it did to the creature itself. Scorpio said it already though.[/QUOTE] Likes the Alien and has a Spider Jerusalem avatar? A man after my own heart.
I have a take what you can get motto with the Alien series,so I watch all the films 1-4 and even make the most out of 3 and 4. Although in fairness to 3 and 4 the setting was great, especially 3's massive prison/ore facility. [QUOTE]Hnngh. No. It was never supposed to be a bug. It was supposed to be a weird ass corrupted human. Sort of like an intelligent zombie, if you understand me. Still human, but thinking on the level of a predator. But by the end the thing was supposed to be equal in intelligence to humans. In the original ending it kills Ripley, and then radios a message back to earth in her voice. And no, the thing was supposed to be completely invincible. That's where the horror element comes from, the fact that it's completely unstoppable. [/QUOTE] Go watch the terminator so.
[QUOTE=gnome;21988584] I haven't seen that cut, why was there an ox on Fury 151? And what else changed about the story?[/QUOTE] They used them to pull trailers and carts full of food. Also for food I guess
The third flick was the worst one, the first two were awesome and the last one was "meh".
[QUOTE=Mabus;21991838]I have a take what you can get motto with the Alien series,so I watch all the films 1-4 and even make the most out of 3 and 4. Although in fairness to 3 and 4 the setting was great, especially 3's massive prison/ore facility. Go watch the terminator so.[/QUOTE] The terminator was stolen from Harlan Ellison.
[QUOTE=Publius;21987584]Alien 3 is the best - but unless you've seen the Director's Cut you can't really comment on it. The theatrical cut is garbage, and gives a lot of people the wrong impression. But the director's cut is breathtaking. It's about an hour longer, and has a very different story. In the theatrical version the alien comes [sp]from a dog[/sp] but in the movie it comes [sp]from an ox[/sp].[/QUOTE] Eh, I don't agree with it being better than the first two but hey, if you liked it that much you'll be glad to know that the third one is having a shit ton of work being done on it for it's blu-ray release. They're even getting some of the actors back to re-do some of their lines. Should be an awesome blu-ray.
I prefer 4 to 2 and 3 personally, 1 was the best though
[QUOTE=Arsonist;21993289]I prefer 4 to 2 and 3 personally, 1 was the best though[/QUOTE] yerdoinitwrong
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;21991277] Hnngh. No. It was never supposed to be a bug. It was supposed to be a weird ass corrupted human. Sort of like an intelligent zombie, if you understand me. Still human, but thinking on the level of a predator. But by the end the thing was supposed to be equal in intelligence to humans. In the original ending it kills Ripley, and then radios a message back to earth in her voice. And no, the thing was supposed to be completely invincible. That's where the horror element comes from, the fact that it's completely unstoppable.[/QUOTE] What, you mean in pre-production of the first movie this concept was present? I thought everyone said James Cameron ruined the concept. If you think that was the way it was portrayed in the first movie, I'd have to largely disagree. It didn't seem to show an indication of intelligence other than that of the ability to be sneaky. I mean, please back the concept up because I'm not seeing it. I even watched all the special features about the creation and design of the creature on the Alien dvd I have, I don't recall a single reference to this quasi-intelligent zombie human that you're referencing. Plus the concept of something invincible isn't scary to me, it just sounds unrealistic. Cheesy, even. Like Superman. Superman's not interesting because the only thing that can kill him is cryptonite. Oh, okay, found this in wikipedia: [quote]Scott had wanted the Alien to bite off Ripley's head and then make the final log entry in her voice, but the producers vetoed this idea as they believed that the Alien had to die at the end of the film[/quote] That sounds like it would have been out of place, though, I don't see any other indication to human-like intelligence throughout the rest of the movie.
[QUOTE=Publius;21987584]Alien 3 is the best - but unless you've seen the Director's Cut you can't really comment on it. The theatrical cut is garbage, and gives a lot of people the wrong impression. But the director's cut is breathtaking. It's about an hour longer, and has a very different story. In the theatrical version the alien comes [sp]from a dog[/sp] but in the movie it comes [sp]from an ox[/sp].[/QUOTE] Its not a directors cut its an assembly cut. Very different. But I agree. The assembly cut of alien 3 kicks ass. Easily tops starship troo- i mean aliens for me.
[QUOTE=gnome;21994259]What, you mean in pre-production of the first movie this concept was present? I thought everyone said James Cameron ruined the concept. If you think that was the way it was portrayed in the first movie, I'd have to largely disagree. It didn't seem to show an indication of intelligence other than that of the ability to be sneaky. I mean, please back the concept up because I'm not seeing it. I even watched all the special features about the creation and design of the creature on the Alien dvd I have, I don't recall a single reference to this quasi-intelligent zombie human that you're referencing. Plus the concept of something invincible isn't scary to me, it just sounds unrealistic.[/QUOTE] It's not so much a present trait of the creature so much as it is an underlying concept. It doesn't ever directly show any sort of intelligence, but then it's hardly ever on screen. No, what's important is that it was written with that in mind, and that it was never expressly defined as just a dumb predatory animal. It works into the way it was shown, you never get a clear idea of how it looks, and you never get a clear idea of how it acts. I get most of this from what the original ending was. Which, yes, was scrapped, but just because the ending was scrapped doesn't mean that part of the creature was scrapped. Unrealistic? You're talking about an Alien with a giant penis for a head that has a mouth inside of it's mouth, and yet the idea that it's unstoppable is the part that bugs you? [editline]12:45AM[/editline] [QUOTE=gnome;21994259]Plus the concept of something invincible isn't scary to me, it just sounds unrealistic. Cheesy, even. Like Superman. Superman's not interesting because the only thing that can kill him is cryptonite. Oh, okay, found this in wikipedia: That sounds like it would have been out of place, though, I don't see any other indication to human-like intelligence throughout the rest of the movie.[/QUOTE] Well that's because you hardly ever see the Alien, and even when you do it doesn't do much. Like I said, what's important is that it's never expressly defined as a stupid animal. And are you really comparing Super Man to the Alien?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;21994430]It's not so much a present trait of the creature so much as it is an underlying concept. It doesn't ever directly show any sort of intelligence, but then it's hardly ever on screen. No, what's important is that it was written with that in mind, and that it was never expressly defined as just a dumb predatory animal. It works into the way it was shown, you never get a clear idea of how it looks, and you never get a clear idea of how it acts. I get most of this from what the original ending was. Which, yes, was scrapped, but just because the ending was scrapped doesn't mean that part of the creature was scrapped.[/QUOTE] Okay, but the point is that it clearly wasn't defined as either incredibly intelligent or "dumb" except for in this scrapped ending, so you're really assuming a lot just from that. Either that ending was incredibly out of place in the way the creature was portrayed throughout the movie, or they changed parts of the movie to accomodate for the ending. [quote] Unrealistic? You're talking about an Alien with a giant penis for a head that has a mouth inside of it's mouth, and yet the idea that it's unstoppable is the part that bugs you? [editline]12:45AM[/editline] [/quote] There's a difference between that and what's realistic. When you take a story into space in the far, far future and add an alien with believable evolutionary traits, that's fine. Add something like "it cannot be destroyed" and you're venturing into more magical territory. Give me one reason why any of the things you mentioned aren't possible. I could probably give you plenty of reasons why "indestructible" is a lot less likely if I ventured into the realm of science for a bit. [quote] Well that's because you hardly ever see the Alien, and even when you do it doesn't do much. Like I said, what's important is that it's never expressly defined as a stupid animal. [/quote] Quote from Ash the android: "Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility." Not by its intelligence. I don't even think the creatures were portrayed as "dumb predators" in the sequel any more than in the original. The only thing I can think of is that they had numbers to their advantage and in the concept of the "hive mind" they aren't afraid of letting a few of their own die for the good of the colony. Their only intent is to spread, and that doesn't sound any different from the first. [quote]And are you really comparing Super Man to the Alien?[/quote] I'm comparing the concept of a fictional thing that is invincible, I'm not saying they're related. [editline]06:15PM[/editline] Also, do you completely forget the scene where Hudson says "THEY cut the power?! What do you mean THEY cut the power, man, they're fucking animals!" The fact that they cut the power indicates some intelligence.
I'm not an expert on this subject at all, but when the Aliens have acid blood, I don' think they were intended to be invincible, just highly volatile even in death very deadly.
[QUOTE=ababs362;21995437]I'm not an expert on this subject at all, but when the Aliens have acid blood, I don' think they were intended to be invincible, just highly volatile even in death very deadly.[/QUOTE] Also this. The acid blood is a very iconic part of the alien as a creature, and it wouldn't need it if it couldn't be hurt.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;21992769]The terminator was stolen from Harlan Ellison.[/QUOTE] Cameron strikes again. :raise:
[QUOTE=Publius;21987584]Alien 3 is the best - but unless you've seen the Director's Cut you can't really comment on it. The theatrical cut is garbage, and gives a lot of people the wrong impression. But the director's cut is breathtaking. It's about an hour longer, and has a very different story. In the theatrical version the alien comes [sp]from a dog[/sp] but in the movie it comes [sp]from an ox[/sp].[/QUOTE] I really hope the blu-ray has this cut. [editline]05:50PM[/editline] [QUOTE=postal;21993086]Eh, I don't agree with it being better than the first two but hey, if you liked it that much you'll be glad to know that the third one is having a shit ton of work being done on it for it's blu-ray release. They're even getting some of the actors back to re-do some of their lines. Should be an awesome blu-ray.[/QUOTE] Lol how is that gonna work
[QUOTE=Arsonist;21993289]I prefer 4 to 2 and 3 personally, 1 was the best though[/QUOTE] getdafackouttahere
I wish that there was another alien with ripley I don't care what else weaver does, I am only interested as her as ripley [QUOTE=gnome;21994729] What do you mean THEY cut the power, man, they're fucking animals!" [/QUOTE] [B]THEY CUT THE POWER? WHAT DO YOU MEAN THEY CUT THE POWER MAN? THEY'RE FUCKING ANIMALS![/b] [B]Game over man, game over![/B] easily my favourite hudson quote apart from everyone's fav quote of Aliens [img]http://pantsnotfound.com/files/stay-frosty-600.png[/img]
Hudson was the shit.
[QUOTE=gnome;21994259]What, you mean in pre-production of the first movie this concept was present? I thought everyone said James Cameron ruined the concept. If you think that was the way it was portrayed in the first movie, I'd have to largely disagree. It didn't seem to show an indication of intelligence other than that of the ability to be sneaky. I mean, please back the concept up because I'm not seeing it. I even watched all the special features about the creation and design of the creature on the Alien dvd I have, I don't recall a single reference to this quasi-intelligent zombie human that you're referencing. Plus the concept of something invincible isn't scary to me, it just sounds unrealistic. Cheesy, even. Like Superman. Superman's not interesting because the only thing that can kill him is cryptonite. Oh, okay, found this in wikipedia: That sounds like it would have been out of place, though, I don't see any other indication to human-like intelligence throughout the rest of the movie.[/QUOTE] Guy you quoted was way off the mark. The Alien was originally conceived as a metaphor for human rape, and it was elemental, a unstoppable supernatural force, but human at the same time. Turning them into mere "bugs" for the 2nd film is what many purists disagreed with.
One or two is my favourite, I can never decide. Three was okay but too long and missed the mark a tad. Four is dead to me. What even was that. Also, 2000th post!
[QUOTE=kizza55;22005451]One or two is my favourite, I can never decide. Three was okay but too long and missed the mark a tad. Four is dead to me. What even was that. Also, 2000th post![/QUOTE] Shut up, damn.
[img]http://www.alexalienart.com/AlienResurrection.JPG[/img] Damn you's a sexy bitch (8)
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;22005329]Guy you quoted was way off the mark. The Alien was originally conceived as a metaphor for human rape, and it was elemental, a unstoppable supernatural force, but human at the same time. Turning them into mere "bugs" for the 2nd film is what many purists disagreed with.[/QUOTE] All right, I mean I can accept that the original concept of the alien was quite different, but I suppose I just like the way it turned out better. Supernatural shit for the most part just doesn't interest me as much as more "believable" science fiction. [editline]11:14AM[/editline] [QUOTE=piranhamatt2;22006102][IMG]http://www.alexalienart.com/AlienResurrection.JPG[/IMG] Damn you's a sexy bitch (8)[/QUOTE] That part of Resurrection always weirded me the fuck out. It's weird enough that she's practically making out with an alien, but she's also basically related to the thing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.