7 ms·

Watched in not too long ago with my older one, aged 15. Means he grew up with Marvel and DC movies. I never saw him as glued to a film before, onoy thing that c

by hef19898 3y ago

Watched in not too long ago with my older one, aged 15. Means he grew up with Marvel and DC movies. I never saw him as glued to a film before, onoy thing that came close was Terminator 1&2 and Aliens. Tells a lot about good story telling, because by now the overall arc of Alien is not much of a surprise anymore, cinematography, design, music and sound. Absolutely one of the great films of all times, and proof good scifi doesn't need a ton of CGI.

dylan604 3y ago
Aliens is one of the rare cases where the sequel is just as good and if not better than the first, and not just a cash grab. Bill Paxton in Aliens was pure gold!
- magicalhippo 3y ago
  The Director's Cut of Aliens is also a brilliant example of how sometimes less is more. The added opening scene on the planet completely ruins the tension of the first part of the movie.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    I never thought aboutbit, bit you are right. The other scenes, the one with the automated turrets, and especially the one where Rioley learns of her daugjter's death, are great. What the first scene shows so, is that Hadley's Hope was a nice and striving colony. So one could make the case that it served a purpose.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      i didn't think that opening scene was a negative as a scene in general, but the GP did specify as the opening. so maybe it does have a negative affect being the opening scene, but possibly could work as a flashback if you're not opposed to the flashback device in general
      - magicalhippo 3y ago
        Yeah I think it could have worked if they used it way later in the movie, after the aliens have been discovered, but as the opening shot it completely ruins the mystery and tension the movie tries to build. That said I don't think it would have added much over all, so unlike the other scenes I'd say just drop it.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Aliens and Terminator 2 revealed something about sequels I think. The first movie in each case is horror, the monster is invincible and the hero is super weak, just trying to survive. By the end, the main character has survived and is now a certified badass. There’s no way to make a horror movie sequel without resetting the main character’s development. So instead, they made action movies, which was the perfect decision. This is also why there couldn’t be a good third movie, there’s nowhere natural to go after action. Maybe one could slip a disaster movie in between the horror and the action…
  - cheschire 3y ago
    Evil Dead went on the same journey, more or less.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      At least they have the option to lean more toward the comedy.
    - tombert 3y ago
      It did, but I would argue that Army of Darkness is just as great as Evil Dead 2, and substantially better than the first Evil Dead, so we at least got three classic movies instead of two. Though, I guess you could argue that Evil Dead 2 is much more of a "comedy slapstick remake" of the first one than a sequel.
      - chongli 3y ago
        And Army of Darkness is a comedy slapstick action movie. Right up there with UHF. Fantastic film!
        tombert 3y ago
        Oh it's definitely a great movie, arguably better than Evil Dead 2, but I will say that a part of me wished they had kind of pretended to take themselves seriously more. Let me explain: part of why I like Evil Dead 2 so much is because it does a great job of walking the line between "horror" and "comedy". At some parts it's pretty goofy, but always in a way that kind of feels like it could plausibly be in a regular horror movie. Stuff like the moose head laughing, or Ash cutting off his hand and replacing it with a chainsaw are silly, and even slapsticky, but still kind of works in the tone of a "regular" horror movie. Army of Darkness on the other hand is basically a just a comedy. It has no pretense of being anything else, and there's nothing wrong with that at all, but a part of me wonders what it would have been like if they had kind of kept the goofiness into "potentially plausible in an action movie" territory.
- cronix 3y ago
  His role as Chet in Weird Science was gold. Almost the same whiny character!
- tombert 3y ago
  I agree, though it does kind of feel like we're in the minority on this. I thought Ripley's character was substantially more developed in Aliens than Alien. In Alien, most of the humans exists to be victims (or potential victims) of the monster. In Alien (at least in the directors cut), we have Ripley coming to terms with the fact that she outlived her daughter, developing a maternal bond with Newt, and fundamentally just growing as a character. A part of me hates Alien 3 so much that I just pretend it doesn't exist.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    We could have had Gibson's Alien 3. With a lead-in to a hive-Earth movie. Instead, we got a "no guns" and trashing everything that was great about the second movie. I have a difficult time reconciling it with the fact that it's a Fincher movie.
    - mellosouls 3y ago
      I agree with you and others on the disappointment of Alien 3, but I recently listened to the Audible of Gibson's Alien 3 and was underwhelmed, it seemed like a bog-standard actioner.
    - tombert 3y ago
      I never really got over the fact that they killed Newt in the first five minutes of the movie. To me it sort of negated the entire third act of Aliens, which was all about saving Newt and somewhat of a redemption story for Ripley. To be fair to Fincher, didn't he want to take his name off of it because he problems with the script?
      - George83728 3y ago
        The way I see it, new movies don't modify old movies. The third movie cannot nullify the ending of the second movie because it cannot modify the second movie in any way. How could it be any other way? Because "canon"? It's a senseless concept. Suppose I buy the full rights to all Alien intellectual property, and then commission a prequel story in which Ripley cruelly murders a dog for no reason. Does this ruin the first movie, by making it into a story about a heroic dog murderer? No, I didn't change the first story at all. Owning the IP doesn't make me into a time traveler who can retroactively modify the meaning of art created in the past. Even if I were the original creator and not just somebody who has the IP rights, I cannot travel into the past and modify the meaning of things already published.
- michaelwilson 3y ago
  There's a story that when Cameron pitched it, he wrote one word on the board and the studio was sold: $Alien$.
  - moffkalast 3y ago
    James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron. James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is James Cameron.
- KineticLensman 3y ago
  Aliens also passes the Bechdel test [0]. Ripley and Newt (both named female characters) have conservations about subjects other than men and romance. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test
omnibrain 3y ago
Try "Rear Window" (1954) next.

dylan604 3y ago

Aliens is one of the rare cases where the sequel is just as good and if not better than the first, and not just a cash grab. Bill Paxton in Aliens was pure gold!

magicalhippo 3y ago
The Director's Cut of Aliens is also a brilliant example of how sometimes less is more. The added opening scene on the planet completely ruins the tension of the first part of the movie.
- hef19898 3y ago
  I never thought aboutbit, bit you are right. The other scenes, the one with the automated turrets, and especially the one where Rioley learns of her daugjter's death, are great. What the first scene shows so, is that Hadley's Hope was a nice and striving colony. So one could make the case that it served a purpose.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    i didn't think that opening scene was a negative as a scene in general, but the GP did specify as the opening. so maybe it does have a negative affect being the opening scene, but possibly could work as a flashback if you're not opposed to the flashback device in general
    - magicalhippo 3y ago
      Yeah I think it could have worked if they used it way later in the movie, after the aliens have been discovered, but as the opening shot it completely ruins the mystery and tension the movie tries to build. That said I don't think it would have added much over all, so unlike the other scenes I'd say just drop it.
bee_rider 3y ago
Aliens and Terminator 2 revealed something about sequels I think. The first movie in each case is horror, the monster is invincible and the hero is super weak, just trying to survive. By the end, the main character has survived and is now a certified badass. There’s no way to make a horror movie sequel without resetting the main character’s development. So instead, they made action movies, which was the perfect decision. This is also why there couldn’t be a good third movie, there’s nowhere natural to go after action. Maybe one could slip a disaster movie in between the horror and the action…
- cheschire 3y ago
  Evil Dead went on the same journey, more or less.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    At least they have the option to lean more toward the comedy.
  - tombert 3y ago
    It did, but I would argue that Army of Darkness is just as great as Evil Dead 2, and substantially better than the first Evil Dead, so we at least got three classic movies instead of two. Though, I guess you could argue that Evil Dead 2 is much more of a "comedy slapstick remake" of the first one than a sequel.
    - chongli 3y ago
      And Army of Darkness is a comedy slapstick action movie. Right up there with UHF. Fantastic film!
      - tombert 3y ago
        Oh it's definitely a great movie, arguably better than Evil Dead 2, but I will say that a part of me wished they had kind of pretended to take themselves seriously more. Let me explain: part of why I like Evil Dead 2 so much is because it does a great job of walking the line between "horror" and "comedy". At some parts it's pretty goofy, but always in a way that kind of feels like it could plausibly be in a regular horror movie. Stuff like the moose head laughing, or Ash cutting off his hand and replacing it with a chainsaw are silly, and even slapsticky, but still kind of works in the tone of a "regular" horror movie. Army of Darkness on the other hand is basically a just a comedy. It has no pretense of being anything else, and there's nothing wrong with that at all, but a part of me wonders what it would have been like if they had kind of kept the goofiness into "potentially plausible in an action movie" territory.
cronix 3y ago
His role as Chet in Weird Science was gold. Almost the same whiny character!
tombert 3y ago
I agree, though it does kind of feel like we're in the minority on this. I thought Ripley's character was substantially more developed in Aliens than Alien. In Alien, most of the humans exists to be victims (or potential victims) of the monster. In Alien (at least in the directors cut), we have Ripley coming to terms with the fact that she outlived her daughter, developing a maternal bond with Newt, and fundamentally just growing as a character. A part of me hates Alien 3 so much that I just pretend it doesn't exist.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  We could have had Gibson's Alien 3. With a lead-in to a hive-Earth movie. Instead, we got a "no guns" and trashing everything that was great about the second movie. I have a difficult time reconciling it with the fact that it's a Fincher movie.
  - mellosouls 3y ago
    I agree with you and others on the disappointment of Alien 3, but I recently listened to the Audible of Gibson's Alien 3 and was underwhelmed, it seemed like a bog-standard actioner.
  - tombert 3y ago
    I never really got over the fact that they killed Newt in the first five minutes of the movie. To me it sort of negated the entire third act of Aliens, which was all about saving Newt and somewhat of a redemption story for Ripley. To be fair to Fincher, didn't he want to take his name off of it because he problems with the script?
    - George83728 3y ago
      The way I see it, new movies don't modify old movies. The third movie cannot nullify the ending of the second movie because it cannot modify the second movie in any way. How could it be any other way? Because "canon"? It's a senseless concept. Suppose I buy the full rights to all Alien intellectual property, and then commission a prequel story in which Ripley cruelly murders a dog for no reason. Does this ruin the first movie, by making it into a story about a heroic dog murderer? No, I didn't change the first story at all. Owning the IP doesn't make me into a time traveler who can retroactively modify the meaning of art created in the past. Even if I were the original creator and not just somebody who has the IP rights, I cannot travel into the past and modify the meaning of things already published.
michaelwilson 3y ago
There's a story that when Cameron pitched it, he wrote one word on the board and the studio was sold: $Alien$.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron. James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is James Cameron.
KineticLensman 3y ago
Aliens also passes the Bechdel test [0]. Ripley and Newt (both named female characters) have conservations about subjects other than men and romance. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test

omnibrain 3y ago

Try "Rear Window" (1954) next.