6 ms·

Much of what I read in the article about what he wrote reminds me heavily of Alien: Resurrection.

ekianjo 9y ago
> Alien: Resurrection. That was a really, really bad movie. Jeunet had absolutely no idea what he was doing directing that movie.
- badosu 9y ago
  I find it no worse than Alien 3, at least it had some aesthetic style.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I think the key here, in retrospect, is that this would have been Gibson in his 30s, immediately after writing Count Zero (and Neuromancer before that). I can't think of a better thematic match to continue on from Aliens. Also incredibly annoyed that the noted reason it got shot down was "not being innovative enough." I feel like most movies die from overly innovative scripts, whereas most of the classics, reduced to script form, are really simple ideas executed well. I mean, &#(@, look at the script for Alien and Aliens.
    - badosu 9y ago
      > I mean, &#(@, look at the script for Alien and Aliens. I am a huge Alien fan, but I can't understand the fascination with Aliens, it always seemed like a cheap action movie when compared with the true psychological horror of the first one.
      - Touche 9y ago
        I think it's just that people have seen Aliens more, because it's easier to jump into it and have a good time, laugh at the "Game over man" scene, etc. Whereas with Alien you are on the edge of your seat the entire time. Much more draining. Aliens is a bit different from your typical action movie in that the heroes are getting their butts kicked the entire time. The only time where the heroes really had a fist-pump moment was when the 2 sacrificed themselves by blowing up a bomb and taking out a couple of aliens.
        ekianjo 9y ago
        > Aliens is a bit different from your typical action movie in that the heroes are getting their butts kicked the entire time Yeah, especially the first scene at the beginning when they start to get into the Alien lair and get their ass massively kicked. That whole scene was awesome from beginning to end.
      - ethbro 9y ago
        Alien always reminded me of Japanese horror (implied), whereas Aliens was Western (shown).
        maxerickson 9y ago
        Here's a scene from Alien known as the "chestburster": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsD6AL3HJtM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsD6AL3HJtM (it's plenty graphic)
        nkrisc 9y ago
        It's also one of the only such moments in the movie where you clearly see the horror and gore. You've cherry-picked the one contradiction.
      - jfoutz 9y ago
        30 years later Aliens looks like a cliché action movie. I think it looks that way because it set a lot of standards for action movies. Poke around at popular action movies from the early 80's. Aliens has no Star Wars mysticism. Aliens lacks Star Trek optimism. It's not 'a guy with a grudge' like Rambo or Commando or any of a dozen others. It certainly pulled from old westerns and war movies, but did it in a (imho) pretty innovative way.
        throwanem 9y ago
        In a lot of ways, it's Alien: Vietnam.
      - MrZongle2 9y ago
        "I am a huge Alien fan, but I can't understand the fascination with Aliens, it always seemed like a cheap action movie when compared with the true psychological horror of the first one." Having seen both movies during their original release, I originally liked Aliens more; probably a side-effect of being in my teens and liking guns and explosions. As I've gotten older, as much as I've come to further appreciate the suspense and design of the original, Cameron's film is still one of my favorite movies and IMO is a rare example of a worthy sequel. In Alien, Ellen Ripley is a victim of circumstance. She's the smarter-than-average crewmember whose advice is largely ignored and despite doing the best she can barely survives an ordeal that should be guaranteed to leave her with a lifetime of PTSD. In Aliens, we quickly find out that Ripley is once again a victim of circumstance: her lifeboat drifted off course while she was in stasis, resulting in her returning home after decades. Nobody believes her about the Xenomorph, and she's considered a responsible party for the destruction of the ship in the first movie. Deleted scenes (restored in the director's cut, I believe?) revealed that her daughter died of old age before Ripley returned. She's in rough shape. Traumatized by what happened and relegated to menial work due to her perceived unreliability, she's given a path for redemption: go back to where it all started and help the military (which is revealed to be largely incompetent and impotent when things go south). Alien is a great horror movie, to be sure. But Aliens is, IMO, a redemption movie when you look past the swagger and gunfire. A smart character who should be in good shape (after being victorious in the first movie) is shown to be a fractured, vulnerable person who still summons the strength to face her fears, rescue another victim of circumstance (Newt), overcome her bias (against Bishop), presumably prevent the problem from ever happening again, and definitively prove that she was right all along. And all, IMO, without cheapening the first movie and by revisiting one of the strongest female characters to appear in a movie franchise. It nukes the Bechdel test from orbit. This is also why I hate Alien 3, as it was released, with a burning passion. It completely invalidates Ripley's character arc in Aliens with the lazy reverse deus ex machina of killing Newt, Bishop and Hicks in the first act. I'm not a huge fan of Gibson's screenplay, but it would have been much better than the dreck that was ultimately released.
        ekianjo 9y ago
        > This is also why I hate Alien 3, as it was released, with a burning passion. It completely invalidates Ripley's character arc in Aliens with the lazy reverse deus ex machina of killing Newt, Bishop and Hicks in the first act. I'm not a huge fan of Gibson's screenplay, but it would have been much better than the dreck that was ultimately released. Agree. I hate Alien 3 even more knowing Fincher directed it - he made so many good movies I can't understand for the life of me how he butchered that one so bad.
      - lrc 9y ago
        The movie also shows a female hero without putting a thumb on the scale. Compare Ripley's descent into the Alien Queen's lair vs. that time the girl kicked a whole Velociraptor out the window using gymnastics
        ekianjo 9y ago
        Yup, but to be honest very few actresses can play such kind of roles. Sigourney Weaver is just an extraordinary fit for these kind of characters.
        ekianjo 9y ago
        Yup, but to be honest very few actresses can play such kind of roles. Sigourney Weaver is just an extraordinary fit for these kind of characters.
      - ekianjo 9y ago
        > but I can't understand the fascination with Aliens Aliens is THE perfect movie for me. The story is simple but eventful and with lots of surprises. There are many characters that are well written and who all have their opportunity to shine. Cinematography-wise, it's extremely solid with Cameron as a director, doing some of his very best work. Casting was perfect, everyone fit extremely well in their roles. Even special effects for the most part, were extremely well done and remain believable to this day. And the musical score was the icing on the top. Really, I can't find anything wrong with Aliens. I like Alien (1) as well but it's a very, very different movie.
  - Touche 9y ago
    Agreed. Alien 3's problem was that it came out when every action movie thought it needed CGI, even though CGI wasn't ready at the time. So scenes with the aliens look comically bad, like a cheap video game.
    - hmstx 9y ago
      I'm not sure whether you mean the alien shots look bad because they had to use primitive CGI? That movie's pretty much all man-in-suit and practical props, with a number of shots using rod puppets on blue screen. Those shots do look bad, but it's because of the bad compositing (not sure if optical compositing or bad, early digital compositing, the blacks and matte lines are horrible). True CGI would have looked and moved worse. There's pretty much one CGI shot in there though, and that's when the alien's head dome crackles under thermal shock in the foundry (looks like CGI crackles comped onto man-in-suit plate, from memory). Haven't watched the "behind the scenes DVD" features in a couple years though. I think it even has Richard Edlund and Tom Woodruff talking about how they were one of the last movies to do most everything the old way at that time. I'd say Alien 3's bigger problem is the development hell it suffered from, as mentioned by others.
      - Touche 9y ago
        Thank you for the info! Very interesting. I always though it was bad CGI, couldn't imagine it was anything else.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      > even though CGI wasn't ready at the time. Excuse me ? Terminator 2 came out in the very same year, and had fantastic CGI. It's just a matter of who works on them, even at the time.

> Alien: Resurrection. That was a really, really bad movie. Jeunet had absolutely no idea what he was doing directing that movie.

badosu 9y ago
I find it no worse than Alien 3, at least it had some aesthetic style.
- ethbro 9y ago
  I think the key here, in retrospect, is that this would have been Gibson in his 30s, immediately after writing Count Zero (and Neuromancer before that). I can't think of a better thematic match to continue on from Aliens. Also incredibly annoyed that the noted reason it got shot down was "not being innovative enough." I feel like most movies die from overly innovative scripts, whereas most of the classics, reduced to script form, are really simple ideas executed well. I mean, &#(@, look at the script for Alien and Aliens.
  - badosu 9y ago
    > I mean, &#(@, look at the script for Alien and Aliens. I am a huge Alien fan, but I can't understand the fascination with Aliens, it always seemed like a cheap action movie when compared with the true psychological horror of the first one.
    - Touche 9y ago
      I think it's just that people have seen Aliens more, because it's easier to jump into it and have a good time, laugh at the "Game over man" scene, etc. Whereas with Alien you are on the edge of your seat the entire time. Much more draining. Aliens is a bit different from your typical action movie in that the heroes are getting their butts kicked the entire time. The only time where the heroes really had a fist-pump moment was when the 2 sacrificed themselves by blowing up a bomb and taking out a couple of aliens.
      - ekianjo 9y ago
        > Aliens is a bit different from your typical action movie in that the heroes are getting their butts kicked the entire time Yeah, especially the first scene at the beginning when they start to get into the Alien lair and get their ass massively kicked. That whole scene was awesome from beginning to end.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      Alien always reminded me of Japanese horror (implied), whereas Aliens was Western (shown).
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        Here's a scene from Alien known as the "chestburster": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsD6AL3HJtM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsD6AL3HJtM (it's plenty graphic)
        nkrisc 9y ago
        It's also one of the only such moments in the movie where you clearly see the horror and gore. You've cherry-picked the one contradiction.
    - jfoutz 9y ago
      30 years later Aliens looks like a cliché action movie. I think it looks that way because it set a lot of standards for action movies. Poke around at popular action movies from the early 80's. Aliens has no Star Wars mysticism. Aliens lacks Star Trek optimism. It's not 'a guy with a grudge' like Rambo or Commando or any of a dozen others. It certainly pulled from old westerns and war movies, but did it in a (imho) pretty innovative way.
      - throwanem 9y ago
        In a lot of ways, it's Alien: Vietnam.
    - MrZongle2 9y ago
      "I am a huge Alien fan, but I can't understand the fascination with Aliens, it always seemed like a cheap action movie when compared with the true psychological horror of the first one." Having seen both movies during their original release, I originally liked Aliens more; probably a side-effect of being in my teens and liking guns and explosions. As I've gotten older, as much as I've come to further appreciate the suspense and design of the original, Cameron's film is still one of my favorite movies and IMO is a rare example of a worthy sequel. In Alien, Ellen Ripley is a victim of circumstance. She's the smarter-than-average crewmember whose advice is largely ignored and despite doing the best she can barely survives an ordeal that should be guaranteed to leave her with a lifetime of PTSD. In Aliens, we quickly find out that Ripley is once again a victim of circumstance: her lifeboat drifted off course while she was in stasis, resulting in her returning home after decades. Nobody believes her about the Xenomorph, and she's considered a responsible party for the destruction of the ship in the first movie. Deleted scenes (restored in the director's cut, I believe?) revealed that her daughter died of old age before Ripley returned. She's in rough shape. Traumatized by what happened and relegated to menial work due to her perceived unreliability, she's given a path for redemption: go back to where it all started and help the military (which is revealed to be largely incompetent and impotent when things go south). Alien is a great horror movie, to be sure. But Aliens is, IMO, a redemption movie when you look past the swagger and gunfire. A smart character who should be in good shape (after being victorious in the first movie) is shown to be a fractured, vulnerable person who still summons the strength to face her fears, rescue another victim of circumstance (Newt), overcome her bias (against Bishop), presumably prevent the problem from ever happening again, and definitively prove that she was right all along. And all, IMO, without cheapening the first movie and by revisiting one of the strongest female characters to appear in a movie franchise. It nukes the Bechdel test from orbit. This is also why I hate Alien 3, as it was released, with a burning passion. It completely invalidates Ripley's character arc in Aliens with the lazy reverse deus ex machina of killing Newt, Bishop and Hicks in the first act. I'm not a huge fan of Gibson's screenplay, but it would have been much better than the dreck that was ultimately released.
      - ekianjo 9y ago
        > This is also why I hate Alien 3, as it was released, with a burning passion. It completely invalidates Ripley's character arc in Aliens with the lazy reverse deus ex machina of killing Newt, Bishop and Hicks in the first act. I'm not a huge fan of Gibson's screenplay, but it would have been much better than the dreck that was ultimately released. Agree. I hate Alien 3 even more knowing Fincher directed it - he made so many good movies I can't understand for the life of me how he butchered that one so bad.
    - lrc 9y ago
      The movie also shows a female hero without putting a thumb on the scale. Compare Ripley's descent into the Alien Queen's lair vs. that time the girl kicked a whole Velociraptor out the window using gymnastics
      - ekianjo 9y ago
        Yup, but to be honest very few actresses can play such kind of roles. Sigourney Weaver is just an extraordinary fit for these kind of characters.
      - ekianjo 9y ago
        Yup, but to be honest very few actresses can play such kind of roles. Sigourney Weaver is just an extraordinary fit for these kind of characters.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      > but I can't understand the fascination with Aliens Aliens is THE perfect movie for me. The story is simple but eventful and with lots of surprises. There are many characters that are well written and who all have their opportunity to shine. Cinematography-wise, it's extremely solid with Cameron as a director, doing some of his very best work. Casting was perfect, everyone fit extremely well in their roles. Even special effects for the most part, were extremely well done and remain believable to this day. And the musical score was the icing on the top. Really, I can't find anything wrong with Aliens. I like Alien (1) as well but it's a very, very different movie.
- Touche 9y ago
  Agreed. Alien 3's problem was that it came out when every action movie thought it needed CGI, even though CGI wasn't ready at the time. So scenes with the aliens look comically bad, like a cheap video game.
  - hmstx 9y ago
    I'm not sure whether you mean the alien shots look bad because they had to use primitive CGI? That movie's pretty much all man-in-suit and practical props, with a number of shots using rod puppets on blue screen. Those shots do look bad, but it's because of the bad compositing (not sure if optical compositing or bad, early digital compositing, the blacks and matte lines are horrible). True CGI would have looked and moved worse. There's pretty much one CGI shot in there though, and that's when the alien's head dome crackles under thermal shock in the foundry (looks like CGI crackles comped onto man-in-suit plate, from memory). Haven't watched the "behind the scenes DVD" features in a couple years though. I think it even has Richard Edlund and Tom Woodruff talking about how they were one of the last movies to do most everything the old way at that time. I'd say Alien 3's bigger problem is the development hell it suffered from, as mentioned by others.
    - Touche 9y ago
      Thank you for the info! Very interesting. I always though it was bad CGI, couldn't imagine it was anything else.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    > even though CGI wasn't ready at the time. Excuse me ? Terminator 2 came out in the very same year, and had fantastic CGI. It's just a matter of who works on them, even at the time.