Amentallica
Unconfirmed Member
Maybe the movie will have a scene in first person like in the Doom movie to resemble Alien Isolation ahahah
Neil Blomkamp's Alien film a direct sequel to Aliens; disregards Alien 3/Resurrection
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
- Status
You nailed it brother. Alien 3 (Assembly) is a better Alien movie then Aliens. The goddamned hate everywhere is seriously depressing. Killing of Newt and Hicks (they were just filler anyway) was the best thing to do.
Purple Mug
Banned
I absolutely love Aliens but lets not act like it didnt weaken the Alien as a creature. The Queen did all the heavy work in terms of maintaining that "perfect organism" mystique going.
Remove her from the movie and tell me the Xenos in Aliens were half as imposing as the loner in Alien and Alien 3.
No skull under the smooth dome. They look lankier and weaker. They act more like animals instead of a cold, calculating humanoid creature that may or may not retain personality traits of its host. And that high pitched baby elephant noise they make...what the fuck was that Cameron?
Again, I LOVE Aliens, but its despite these changes. Certainly not because of them.
Remove her from the movie and tell me the Xenos in Aliens were half as imposing as the loner in Alien and Alien 3.
No skull under the smooth dome. They look lankier and weaker. They act more like animals instead of a cold, calculating humanoid creature that may or may not retain personality traits of its host. And that high pitched baby elephant noise they make...what the fuck was that Cameron?
Again, I LOVE Aliens, but its despite these changes. Certainly not because of them.
Fancy Clown
Member
Yeah I agree with this. Alien 3 was certainly not perfect, but it had balls
Blomkamp said "Clone Ripley" wouldn't feature.
Fancy Clown
Member
The caption for that piece of art said something about 'space jockey pilot' I believe, so it's more likely its just a xenomorph looking flight suit.
Still stupid, mind you, but not quite as bad as xeno-Ripley.
I_R_ Patch
Banned
Alien 3 was the perfect ending, everything after was pure garbage, this will be garbage also
Remove guns from Aliens and tell me the Xenos aren't as imposing as the loner in Alien or Alien 3.
Making a monster look imposing is a lot easier when your heroes don't have good tools to fight it.
Warm Machine
Member
Not necessarily. District 9 had good plotting. Elysium had a good core idea and some good sequences.
I've written an Alien script of my own as an exercise and the core problem with anything Alien is forcing the life cycle into the film and allowing for the time it takes while supporting other plot threads, characters and drama. You can pretty much guarantee someone is getting the face hugger and that the company has the Aliens and they will escape by the dozens and kill loads of people. Hopefully we will see some Alien's actually get properly shot up this time unlike Alien Resurrection.
I'm going to throw out a wild guess that Ripley sets the complex up for self destruction and she and hicks manage to escape on a ship at the end. Then there is a final alien on board and Ripley or hicks sacrifices themselves to destroy it by venting it out an airlock for the 4th time.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
I like alien 3, but killing Newt (and I guess Hicks) was a bad idea or at least very poorly executed. Aliens (especially the special edition) has a full character arc based off mother/daughter relationships and there is a whole mother/daughter angle to the aliens themselves. This culminates in Ripley saving Newt and her calling her mommy. To then tear that apart with no resolution, just a poochie style 'Newt and Hicks were killed' - just doesn't work. It doesn't say 'this is a bleak world where no-one is safe' it says 'we didn't get the actors to reprise their roles'.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
That's a pretty concise way to describe a reductive act though, isn't it? That's what I was getting at there: Big Space Ants was a good idea, too. It's just it was more reductive than I felt it needed to be.
I know your stance on how rape/pregnancy fits into Alien, and I don't even disagree with it. It's a well-read interpretation of what's going on. What I'm arguing is that the Alien can be more than just a rape allegory, and the egg aspect of the lifecycle helps address that, and for me, adds more malevolence/fear to the creature than the eminently understandable Ants thing. Anything that makes this thing more knowable, more easy to "get," I don't know if that's ultimately the best move. I don't think adding extra facets to this monster confuses or muddies it at all. And adding extra facets, as Cameron did by making them space ants, doesn't necessarily mean the other facets that worked just fine needed to be jettisoned, either. Because they still fit.
I mean, again, we're discussing basic matters of suspension of disbelief here, and I can't talk you into feeling like "It can turn you into an egg" is suddenly a thing you like. If you just don't buy it, you just don't buy it. But I'm just trying to explain why it works, for me, and why I buy it, and it's mostly because I prefer a version of the Alien that doesn't have a nature that you can so easily nail down. What I'm saying is that if you believe you can neatly "define" the xenomorph in any way, then you're limiting the creature, period.
This hasn't really convinced me. I just want the damn aliens to be scary this time.... bring the horror to the max. I don't want another sci-fi movie with a bunch of aliens getting shot up and no tension.
That's sort of the problem with the alien character; we already know everything about it.. it's not really scary anymore. :/
Purple Mug
Banned
You're saying they didnt want to pay Carrie Henn or any other random child actor for budget reasons? C'mon. And Hicks? After a lot of bithcing, he got paid more for that computer picture in 3 than his role in Aliens. If they wanted him, they would have paid for him.
So clearly this was the case of director, writers and Sigourney not wanting this family dynamic thing on this final chapter (Sigourney openly admits to this iirc) and killing them off in the opening credits did two things for the movie:
1- It opened with a tone of bricks to the face and set the tone straight away.
2- Removed the need to ultimately waste time killing them 15-20 minutes in just so they could move on with their original intended tragic loner story. Which would have been even worse.
It was the film to end the franchise. They intended to kill Sigourney from very early on. Writting off Hicks and Newt is not that big of a deal in the context of a script that breaks mainstream viewing rules every 2 seconds:
-Kid autopsy.
-Shitstained, flea infested concrete hell hole as its only setting
-All male cast of the most dangerous inmates possible as the only supporting roles besides the hero.
-Rape attempt
-One of the major characters you are supposed to root for admiting to being a "rapist of women"
-Killing off sympathetic main actors and quasi-love interests shortly after establishing them.
Yeah I dont see why opening with two major deaths is so shocking considering it makes no excuses of being BY FAR the darkest of the Alien movies. Its a purposefully uncomfortable unfolding of a worse case scenario for Ripley and it gave the franchise a great three movie story arc that started scary, went heroic for a moment then ended true to the tone of Ash's speech from Alien:
The depressing inevitability of death by this organism.
Thats how you stay true to the tone of the franchise. The heroes dont get to have a heartwarming happy ending.
thisthisthisthisthisthisthis
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
I find this interpretation to be a product of the '70s in which it was created, and has nothing to do with the parasite or how it functions.
That's the point: it so utterly defies any category that you start to see in it what you could still believe to be sensical, even when it completely isn't. Freudian theories have since been defeated and almost reviled, and though their elements still remain, their time in the spotlight has ended. That's what worries me about Blomkamp's "it's a Freudian nightmare".
Freud is also responsible for giving the wrong interpretation Oedipus Rex, which does not go to feelings of flesh, but towards a longing of importance and justice. Redemption is the theme and his eventual reward, but not what Oedipus really wants. What he wants is justice. This particular myth is the original "detective who figures out he is the perp" plot, which you have seen a million times already. Did you ever think of Oedipus Rex? No, because people have held on to Freud's reading of it despite being utterly wrong.
(this happens on many topics and domains, of course, but this one bugs me in particular)
btw: do people here know there is no such thing as Pandora's Box? Desiderius Erasmus translated 'vase' incorrectly, and now everybody thinks it's a box, when people in those days put almost everything in vases, because you can seal those off (with wax), which you cannot do with a wooden box.
As for: "they're ants". This is Cameron creating a different life-cycle in order to fit his ideas onto it. Which he cannot be blamed for, since he didn't know about the deleted scene until much later, apparently. But for the creature it was a complete re-fit from something completely unknowable, the starbeast / parasite, to something very well-known: ants. What this did, is make an alien into a analogy of something terrestrial, and in a way, very, very dull, because it's no longer alien.
The other part, which is also the problem with Prometheus, is that it made the creature far less complex. They are 'just ants', and similarly, because Scott didn't want to think hard about how such beings would have evolved, he went with 'engineered weapons', which is basically the same logic as Intelligent Design: it's too complex, therefore design. I don't blame him for doing this btw, most people do. But I can do that complexity, and I think most people today can do so too. Edge of Tomorrow for instance, is highly complex in terms of narrative, yet nobody was bothered by it. Same for Guardians of the Galaxy, the characterization in that one is insane. Every scene: bam, bam, bam, bam! I was kind of shocked when I noticed that. So what I'm saying is that the audience can handle complexity today, because they've been playing complex video games and entertainment their entire lives, and it is time to deliver on that end.
So in terms of: what movies should we ignore for a true sequel, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien 4, and Prometheus, are ALL on the list. Because they all have the same flaw: they are sequels to the wrong movie, if we assume that the titular character is the main focus.
But in terms of entertainment: who really gives a shit?
I do have an answer to the 'how' of the two mutually exclusive life-cycles, but that's a longer story.
It's just a heartless troll of the audience. There's nothing to be respected about the decision. Even James Cameron called it a slap to the face. People left Aliens with the expectation that the characters got a good ending. If you're going to kill off those characters, do it years later. Don't say that ending you liked in the previous movie didn't really happen. Imagine if Star Wars episode 7 started and they announced in the opening credits that the entire cast died one after ROTJ. It's not something brave. It's just a "Fuck you" to the audience.
Nappuccino
Member
Cameron shouldn't have lost sight of the major themes of Alien. No one should have had a happy ending in the first place.
Purple Mug
Banned
Of course Cameron would say that lool
Family fighting against bad guys was his pet project back then and he finally got that off his system with T2 and True Lies.
But the Aliens ending DID happen. It WAS a happy moment... until Alien 3 started.
Why do you feel like the franchise owes you a happy ending? lol
Or that supporting characters should linger despite the scripts clear intention, just because you liked them in the previous movie. You'd think people would be more accepting of tone setting sudden/unexpected deaths in a post Game of Thrones world, but the Alien 3 grudge still endures for some reason lol
Newt and Hicks arent even the most fleshed out characters either, so I dont even understand the fervent outrage. Their biggest contribution is to give Ripley a glimpse of the motherhood and companionship she missed out on, so taking them away is really more of a reflection of her horrifying misfortunes than anything else.
Star Wars is a goddamn live cartoon. A toy selling, family friendly science fantasy film.
So no that wouldnt fit its theme... the same way the promise of an ass kicking superhero team-up thing in Aliens also didnt fit its respective universe and should never be allowed to happen.
Aliens didn't radically change anything. It wasn't some unknowable creature in Alien, it has a clear parasitic life cycle which we can relate to from insects:
Egg -> Larva -> Host -> Adult
It was always an insect. The only missing piece in the theatrical version was where the eggs come from, and as explained above I think it's a good thing that was left out because the simpler its relationship to us the more brutal the way it sees us. As purely disposable. The act of rape represents that, and the xenomorph is the manifestation of that sole use for us.
Alien is about the cycle of life, the horror is Mother Nature on a scale we are forced to confront. It's terrestrial origins aren't dull, it's scary because these are life cycles that do actually exist. We are just fortunate to be outside them.
That's why it hits close to home and why mystery, and unrelatable qualities, aren't needed to make it scary. It was part of what makes Alien work but it's also the reality of that life cycle colliding with ours and understanding how incompatible they are.
Amoral, without conscience, brutal, that's the insect world which Ash described in Alien. All Aliens did was send us further into it, and showed us group behaviour as opposed to individual.
The creature may be from another world, but it's not as alien as we'd hope it is. It's the worst of nature and the worst of our fears combined, and understanding that is what makes it horrifyingly real. To keep it as this unkillable, unknowable superbeing is to reduce Alien to a slasher flick. It had a lot more to say, and worked on a lot more levels, than that.
And all those levels can still be explored while understanding what we are dealing with.
Warm Machine
Member
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Dan O'Bannon: Why don't they just shoot it?
James Cameron: They can.
Me: Okay.
Also, all those quotes feature the writer being told by the production designer how to solve what appears to be a basic scriptwriting problem, so I'm not sure how that points to a particularly strong thematic resonance that can't be joined up with another idea to strengthen the creature's frightening nature.
Let's also not forget that this thing doesn't work SOLELY due to its metaphorical/allegorical intent. It's also a fanged penismonster from outerspace. It can be scary beyond any psychological aspects it's firmly tethered to. There's nothing wrong with that. Introducing an element of surrealistic body horror (in a creature created by Giger, who'da thunk it) isn't necessarily detracting.
I just don't think something as alien as the xenomorph in the first movie is necessarily helped by limiting it to only being a space-bug, and I don't think those limits are really why it resonated so strongly in the first film, and I don't think the creature's terror-inducing nature was really enhanced or even honestly touched upon all that strongly in the second, which garnered much of its power more from the story of a mother trying to save her "daughter" than anything else. Again - at no point have I said Cameron's closely tying it to space ants was a bad idea. Only that it does box the monster in a little.
And honestly - I wouldn't be surprised if Ridley (all of those quotes coming almost 30 years after the film was finished) hadn't internalized Cameron's depiction of the creature over all that time just like many other fans had. It's not like Scott's particularly known for having the firmest grasp on why his movies actually fucking WORK. And using insects as a source of inspiration isn't necessarily the same as making the monster distinctly an insect.
Was not expecting a discussion about why the deleted egg scene was a freaky little twist to the life-cycle to become such a portentious discussion about the true meaning of the alien's nature and a back-and-forth over the depths of understanding regarding those metaphorical elements.
James Cameron: They can.
Me: Okay.
Also, all those quotes feature the writer being told by the production designer how to solve what appears to be a basic scriptwriting problem, so I'm not sure how that points to a particularly strong thematic resonance that can't be joined up with another idea to strengthen the creature's frightening nature.
Let's also not forget that this thing doesn't work SOLELY due to its metaphorical/allegorical intent. It's also a fanged penismonster from outerspace. It can be scary beyond any psychological aspects it's firmly tethered to. There's nothing wrong with that. Introducing an element of surrealistic body horror (in a creature created by Giger, who'da thunk it) isn't necessarily detracting.
I just don't think something as alien as the xenomorph in the first movie is necessarily helped by limiting it to only being a space-bug, and I don't think those limits are really why it resonated so strongly in the first film, and I don't think the creature's terror-inducing nature was really enhanced or even honestly touched upon all that strongly in the second, which garnered much of its power more from the story of a mother trying to save her "daughter" than anything else. Again - at no point have I said Cameron's closely tying it to space ants was a bad idea. Only that it does box the monster in a little.
And honestly - I wouldn't be surprised if Ridley (all of those quotes coming almost 30 years after the film was finished) hadn't internalized Cameron's depiction of the creature over all that time just like many other fans had. It's not like Scott's particularly known for having the firmest grasp on why his movies actually fucking WORK. And using insects as a source of inspiration isn't necessarily the same as making the monster distinctly an insect.
Was not expecting a discussion about why the deleted egg scene was a freaky little twist to the life-cycle to become such a portentious discussion about the true meaning of the alien's nature and a back-and-forth over the depths of understanding regarding those metaphorical elements.
Warm Machine
Member
If I could go back to 1991 when they were making Alien 3 and working within their sets and with what was on hand this is what I would do to restructure the movie. I'm also saying this with 20/20 vision having seen the movie and its critical and fan response, so this is completely unfair by any metric.
1 - Separate Hicks and Newt into one EEV and Ripley and Bishop in another. Ripley and Bishop end up on Fury 161 and Hicks and Newt would drift somewhere else. This way the franchise has somewhere else to go later and it doesn't immediately put anyone off.
2 - Play much of the movie the same way up until Clemens is attacked. Have Clemens live through that scene but have Golic get killed.and just have it as a first instance of the Alien threatening and then ignoring Ripley.
3 - Trap the Alien like they do in the workprint.
4 - Have 88 encourage the military to show up after they have trapped it.
5 - The military shows up early. 88 is gunned down the moment they show up and the prisoners go into panic mode. Ripley lets the Alien loose herself as she knows it won't kill her when she does that and it is the only weapon she and the others have to defend themselves.
6. The climax still takes place in the lead works using the piston for the mold. Now we have costumed soldiers trying to gun down prisoners with strict orders not to shoot the alien.
7. Alien dies like it does and Ripley falls into the furnace with the help of Clemens. The undercurrent message is doctor assisted suicide instead of a HIV allusion.
1 - Separate Hicks and Newt into one EEV and Ripley and Bishop in another. Ripley and Bishop end up on Fury 161 and Hicks and Newt would drift somewhere else. This way the franchise has somewhere else to go later and it doesn't immediately put anyone off.
2 - Play much of the movie the same way up until Clemens is attacked. Have Clemens live through that scene but have Golic get killed.and just have it as a first instance of the Alien threatening and then ignoring Ripley.
3 - Trap the Alien like they do in the workprint.
4 - Have 88 encourage the military to show up after they have trapped it.
5 - The military shows up early. 88 is gunned down the moment they show up and the prisoners go into panic mode. Ripley lets the Alien loose herself as she knows it won't kill her when she does that and it is the only weapon she and the others have to defend themselves.
6. The climax still takes place in the lead works using the piston for the mold. Now we have costumed soldiers trying to gun down prisoners with strict orders not to shoot the alien.
7. Alien dies like it does and Ripley falls into the furnace with the help of Clemens. The undercurrent message is doctor assisted suicide instead of a HIV allusion.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Explain to me what you think the theme of the first film was. Cameron expanded upon the first film's themes perfectly.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
FOOKIN HELL the cgi was awful in aliens 3.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
The only real CGI shot is the lead coating the Alien's head cracking as the water hits it.
Everything else is just bad bluescreen work.
GavinUK86
Member
It owes a consistent ending. If it had ended sad yet it was still perceived as a solid ending, and a sequel said that didn't really happen, it would be equally bullshit. For example, if the episode after the Red Wedding said that nah, those characters didn't die, they just got wounded. In that case, the ending that people thought was powerful didn't really happen in the story. Another reason the GoT ending is more accepted is that you could look back and see clues. You could go back and see Bolton giving Robb dirty looks. You could see Tywin writing letters and that he became strangely less worried about the war. You could see that it was built up throughout the series. It wasn't just a decision to flip off the audience. It was something that made logical sense; maybe even something that the characters and the audience should have seen coming.
That's exactly what Aliens was. The last hour of it was just pure ridiculousness but it was awesome. You knew Newt or Ripley was not going to die because that would ruin the feel good survival story that was clearly being told, much like the ends of Terminator 1 and 2, but it was lot of fun to see just how they would survive. I thought Alien was pretty good but Aliens might be my favorite action movie ever.
There's only one bit of real CGI at the end, when the Alien explodes. You mean the compositing of the alien puppet is awful.
It looks really off and distracting every single time it shows up.Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Maybe its blue screen, but some of the alien scenes were down right awful.
Cameron didn't change anything. You are seeing the creature in a different habitat, invading its home rather than it invading ours, and en masse rather than as an individual. Shock horror this results in different behavior and a different film. I prefer Alien to Aliens, but I like the exploration of the creature in both. Understanding the creature is what sets the films apart.
They were always designed as insects; it's about the collision of a life cycle and behaviour alien to us and our own. Drawing parallels between their parasitic nature and the human conditions of rape, pregnancy and death in childbirth is what made the film work and gave it it's visceral as well as psychological impact.
Thinking of the insect thing as a later change that is somehow a limiting thing really misses how clever Alien was with that, and how well Aliens expanded on it while keeping the underlying themes at play.
You may disagree but I think keeping it grounded in nature is a good thing.
Nature is scary, and detailing its life-cycle isn't boxing it in its celebrating it.
Nappuccino
Member
Other posters have already explained it quite well. But, in short form it's about dealing with the unknown and the impossible task of happily surviving. Hell, the original ending was going to have Ripley's head bitten off. But shooting her out to space without the likelihood of ever actually being found is also a rather terrifying prospect.
Aliens is much too happy to stick with that second part.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Okay.
Basically, my disagreements with both of those statements is where we fundamentally break. There isn't much ground left on this particular discussion that either of us haven't already covered in pretty thorough detail.
Warm Machine
Member
He looks like a fucked up ghoul. The acid burns Hicks has in Aliens are no where near that serious. I don't get why Neill's concept art was so harsh with it. Also, in Aliens Hicks was more concerned about getting his chest armor off than anything wrong with his face.
Well that's a shame, but with your habit of editing out 90% of the posts you reply to removing context and nuance I can understand how in isolation these sentences may cause you unnecessary distress and you do not wish to continue.
Maybe you can tackle the remaining sentences after you've had a lie down.
I don't think Weaver has any idea what she's doing or where she wants to take Ripley or the series in general. I think she knows the "kids" like Blomkamp, and she's jumping on a bandwagon that just isn't there.
I'm conflicted. Alien 3 feels much more like it's in the same universe as Alien. To me, Aliens is the odd man out. I still absolutely love Aliens, probably one of my top 10 films of all time. It just feels very different from 1 and 3 in terms of what the alien is like, the sexual themes, the horror and Lovecraftian cosmic dread is lacking. Cameron made the alien less scary by explaining how it works. It went from some ancient dark secret that we somehow stumbled upon into a big insect.
Aliens treats the creature as very real and very physical. Alien and Alien 3 treats it as more of a constant representation of dread and terror, infesting everything and everyone. It's almost dream like in how surreal it feels.
I'm conflicted. Alien 3 feels much more like it's in the same universe as Alien. To me, Aliens is the odd man out. I still absolutely love Aliens, probably one of my top 10 films of all time. It just feels very different from 1 and 3 in terms of what the alien is like, the sexual themes, the horror and Lovecraftian cosmic dread is lacking. Cameron made the alien less scary by explaining how it works. It went from some ancient dark secret that we somehow stumbled upon into a big insect.
Aliens treats the creature as very real and very physical. Alien and Alien 3 treats it as more of a constant representation of dread and terror, infesting everything and everyone. It's almost dream like in how surreal it feels.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Okay, so I wasn't reading that condescension wrong.
I remove 90% of the posts not to take you out of context, but to save space and directly address the sentence or idea I'm trying to most directly rebut. The context is still there. I didn't erase it from existence. I don't need to quote your whole post every time. Anyone following the conversation knows it's there, and the little arrow next to your name in the quote can take them directly back to the whole of your words if they actually do need any refresher. It's not a "i'm going to beat you by cutting up your shit like a DJ" - it's "here's the idea I'm addressing specifically"
it's also not as if the surrounding paragraphs of my own don't reference the rest of your content in whatever post I'm responding to at the moment, either. Because they do, and I take care to do that not only to address the other points, but to make sure you and anyone else reading does realize I'm not trying to take you out of context at all.
I mean, I do put some thought into this.
And I don't think, at any point over the course of this (what should be, and what I thought still WAS a mild difference in opinion regarding a pair of really good movies) I've been anywhere near as condescending or mean-spirited towards you as you just were to me. I'm not distressed by any means. I'm just kinda tired - although not tired enough that I need to go ly dow. We've bounced off each other like four or five times now, and it's pretty clear that while I see your point and acknowledge it (while still disagreeing) there's nothing further to be gained by explaining the same concepts and tenets for a third time.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Your first point is plot, not theme, unless you can point out specifically where Scott's film keeps expressing that thematic undercurrent. The impossible task of happily surviving as the main theme in Scit's Alien is something I would be interested to hear you expand upon.
Nappuccino
Member
Plot and theme can intersect. The events of a movie can reveal elements of its theme. The whole movie is about characters trying to adapt and survive against the unknown and failing. The alien is essentially one giant question mark whose understanding remains elusive even after the credits roll. The movie also makes great care to subvert expectations, we expect Kane to survive because he's played by one of the more well-known actors in the cast and he dies. We expect Dallas to be a badass and he dies. We expect the men to be proactive and "saviors," but each attempting to fill that role dies in that undertaking. We expect the alien the be the biggest adversary and then Ash comes into to destroy that idea. He tells us that the alien is the most perfect killing machine, that nothing can stop it. Fire might get it to back away, but there's nothing that can damage it--anything that will would just create a hole into space, killing them all via vacuum. There is no "win" with the alien. The impossibility of survival is directly addressed in both this scene and the scene with Mother. We expect Ripley to easily evacuate, or end the self destruct sequence because she starts it prior to the countdown finishing, but she's unable to prevent that from happening.
We watch as every member of the crew is taken out and even Ripley only overcomes the alien due to luck. The end of Alien isn't triumph. At best, it's catharsis and the chilling realization that she may never be found.
When failure and suffering is basically every step of the journey, I would have to say that a happy ending isn't really in line with its themes (which doesn't even get into the weird sexual horror and so on).
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Have we managed to make it 24 hours without Blomkamp giving some outlet an interview about how he came up with the idea for this movie?
I wonder how many genre fans watching Chappie this weekend are watching it with this news constantly tugging at the back of their brain stem.
I wonder how many genre fans watching Chappie this weekend are watching it with this news constantly tugging at the back of their brain stem.
D
Deleted member 102362
Unconfirmed Member
The creature in Alien is a humanoid-looking individual that takes out the crew of the Nostromo one by one like Bruce Willis in space, but it also uses them to procreate.
In Aliens we have a Hive. A Queen that lays eggs and an army of drones that rush and kill the guys with automatic weapons.
In the end, both can't get the job done - and it's just a matter of taste what you prefer.
I like the concept of the more intelligent/self-preservative individual stalker from Alien more and hence feel like the "strength by numbers" approach (as good as Cameron's film is) was as necessary as an army of Hannibal Lecters.
Plus turning one victim into an egg of yours to impregnate another (victim) is so much more alien than a Queen laying eggs.
Anton Sugar
Member
Makeup test makes it look like he's morphing into Marshall Bell.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
That level of scarring is hilariously over the top.
I don't even remember Hicks' face getting hit with that much acid blood in Aliens. It was mostly just his forehead above his left eye, not full Two-Face
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I always thought it was weird he could catch ANY acid to bare skin and not immediately lose whatever appendage was hit.
the stuff is explicitly shown to go through 8 or 9 floors on a spaceship. Hicks probably should have fairly quickly been eaten in half. But the movie wouldn't have been as good if the acid worked like it did in the first movie, just like it wouldnt have worked as well if the xenomorph itself worked like it did in the first movie.
Strategic nerfs for the sake of game balance, if you will
the stuff is explicitly shown to go through 8 or 9 floors on a spaceship. Hicks probably should have fairly quickly been eaten in half. But the movie wouldn't have been as good if the acid worked like it did in the first movie, just like it wouldnt have worked as well if the xenomorph itself worked like it did in the first movie.
Strategic nerfs for the sake of game balance, if you will
eot
Banned
TomJoadsGhost
Member
It was argued at the time that the acid was rapidly (though not instantly) neutralised by organic material tom help maintain the viability of potential hosts.
- Status