Support NeoGAF

[Prospero]

Aliens, because it's Cameron's only truly great screenplay. The screenplays for T1 and T2, The Abyss, Titanic, etc., are fine enough, but the dialogue in Aliens is 100% pure brilliance (compared to the dialogue in, say, Titanic, which is crap).

The genius thing about the Titanic screenplay (and why I think it's underrated, even in spite of the crap dialogue) is how good it is at teaching you all the stuff you need to know about the ship in order to understand what happened to it after it struck the iceberg. It's easier to watch if you realize that Cameron really doesn't give a shit about the romantic subplot: that's just the narrative hook to use as an excuse to give the viewers a tour of the ship, tell us there aren't any lifeboats, that people of different social classes are housed on different decks, that the water will induce hypothermia, etc. He has to communicate all that stuff in the first 100 minutes or so, and he's expert at that (though at the expense of having any decent characters).

 

[COCKLES]

A L I E N S

What other movie has:-

Hudson
Power Loaders
Alien Queen



Runner up: Terminator and then Abyss.

True Lies was shit and so was Titanic.

 

[fnmore1]

aliens>>>the abyss>>t2>term.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>true lies>>titanic

 

[ManaByte]

Word. I love that flick, I can't wait for the Special Edition DVD.

What's shocking is that a nearly-perfect anamorphic transfer (from a new HD master) of Titanic has existed for nearly two years now. Paramount has just been sitting on it until Cameron can get off his ass and bed of money to participate in the special features.

I got to see the transfer last May and it looks damn good.

I really need to see The Abyss again, I don't think there's a DVD with anamorphic video for it, right?

Nope. The current two-disc set out in the white digipak is the same as the non-anamorphic release.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

Aliens

 

[darscot]

Aliens, T1, Abyss, Titanic, Strange Days, True Lies

 

[Sander]

Aliens, followed closely by T2.

 

[darscot]

Aliens, because it's Cameron's only truly great screenplay. The screenplays for T1 and T2, The Abyss, Titanic, etc., are fine enough, but the dialogue in Aliens is 100% pure brilliance (compared to the dialogue in, say, Titanic, which is crap).

The genius thing about the Titanic screenplay (and why I think it's underrated, even in spite of the crap dialogue) is how good it is at teaching you all the stuff you need to know about the ship in order to understand what happened to it after it struck the iceberg. It's easier to watch if you realize that Cameron really doesn't give a shit about the romantic subplot: that's just the narrative hook to use as an excuse to give the viewers a tour of the ship, tell us there aren't any lifeboats, that people of different social classes are housed on different decks, that the water will induce hypothermia, etc. He has to communicate all that stuff in the first 100 minutes or so, and he's expert at that (though at the expense of having any decent characters).

The brilliant dialog in Aliens comes from the actor. It's a travesty but I can't rememebr his name. Beats head on monitor. Brain cramp!

 

[demon]

The brilliant dialog in Aliens comes from the actor. It's a travesty but I can't rememebr his name. Beats head on monitor. Brain cramp!

"The" actor? You mean Bill Paxton?

 

[darscot]

Thank you! Yes he add libed or wrote must of the gems in Aliens. Allot of the stuff from True Lies too.

 

[demon]

Allot of the stuff from True Lies too.

lol

"I've got a small dick......it's pathetic."

 

[tmdorsey]

Aliens followed closely by Terminator 2


Hudson: "....with those things out there running around?! Heh you can me out man,"
Hicks: "I guess we can count you out of everything then huh?"
Hudson: "That's right man!"

LOL

 

[chinch]

in order...

Abyss long cut
Titanic
T2
T1
Aliens (either cut)
the rest in no particular order

 

[Prospero]

The brilliant dialog in Aliens comes from the actor. It's a travesty but I can't rememebr his name. Beats head on monitor. Brain cramp!

Bill Paxton? He should have gotten a screenwriting co-credit, then--there's no justice in the world.

I've yet to listen to the commentary track to the new Aliens SE--I spent a week with the extras from Alien, and needed a break before hitting the next one.

By the way, the Alien extras pretty much confirm that that movie was good mostly because of dumb luck and accidents--I look forward to learning the same thing about the second one.

 

[darscot]

Even back in Weird Science Bill Paxton was doing this stuff. It's really easy to kind of pick out the stuff he adds. He does that kind of character so well and brings so much to it. He was the best character in Aliens. The other James Cameron actor is good too he is in T1 and Aliens and also plays basically the same character in both.

 

[Ned Flanders]

Paxton also had a cool cameo in Commando!! He was great as the Jimmy Buffet knockoff in Club Dread. Pina Coladaberg baby!!

 

[darscot]

What's the other guys name. He was the soldier form T1 and he was in Aliens I think he was Hicks in aliens.

 

[FoneBone]

The other James Cameron "actor" is good too he is in T1 and Aliens and also plays basically the same character in both.

Um, nope -- Paxton is barely in T1. He's one of the punks Arnold kills at the beginning of the movie.

Anyway, my ranking:
The Terminator, Aliens, and finally, the greatly overrated (but still excellent) T2. I still haven't seen True Lies or the extended cut of The Abyss (though I'll try to rectify that this summer), and I saw Titanic too far back for me to compare it to the others.

 

[darscot]

I talking about the other guy not Paxton.

 

[Pattergen]

Michael Biehn is 'the other actor' and he rulez. His character is DOA in Alien 3, and he is the lead in T1. Yeah, and the bad dude from Abyss. Hasn't done much else from what I can remember.

 

[darscot]

Thanks you! He is wicked in the Abyss too. I like that Cameron basically has his crew and he tries to use them in all his stuff.

 

[Ned Flanders]

Michael Beihn. He was actually the same character in T1, Aliens, AND The Abyss, albeit with various shades of sanity and compassion..


Edit: Errm, yeah beat me to it..

 

[evil ways]

Aliens by far.

 

[ManaByte]

Michael Beihn. He was actually the same character in T1, Aliens, AND The Abyss, albeit with various shades of sanity and compassion..


Edit: Errm, yeah beat me to it..

He's in T2 also.

 

[Pattergen]

He's in T2 also.

Not in the theatrical version. Isn't it just dvd extras?

 

[ManaByte]

Not in the theatrical version. Isn't it just dvd extras?

No, his scenes were re-edited back into the extended edition.

 

[ourumov]

Terminator 2, a myth of my childhood.

 

[Willco]

The only problem with Aliens is that it's so low budget. You barely see the aliens until the end of the film and it's obvious that most of budget is sunk into the queen. It really feels a lot cheaper than Alien and as if it's holding back.

 

[lexbubble]

for posterity sake. the abyss. although i must admit i was a big sucker for titanic....yikes

 

[Pattergen]

Aliens remains to this day one of the most technically impressive films. The puppetry, make-up, and creature effects are first rate, and very convincing.

 

[Willco]

Aliens remains to this day one of the most technically impressive films. The puppetry, make-up, and creature effects are first rate, and very convincing.

For what? 20 minutes?

It's impressive in that it's a great action film that has absolutely no action until the last 20 minutes!

 

[darscot]

For what? 20 minutes?

It's impressive in that it's a great action film that has absolutely no action until the last 20 minutes!

Are you kidding? The suspense and action start pretty much from the get go.

 

[Willco]

Are you kidding? The suspense and action start pretty much from the get go.

Where? When Ripley is laying in bed or at some legal hearing? They don't even frickin' land on the planet for forever. There is no action! Again, you don't even see the aliens practically during the initial battle save for a few glimpses during SHAKY CAM. Then Ripley drives a tank into corners! (THIS IS SO ACTION! OMG!)

Again, there are practically NO aliens in this movie until the end, where it's clear Cameron dumped his money into the Queen.

It's a good movie, but it's hardly action-packed or technically impressive. The original, is by far, a lot more impressive from a technical standpoint. And it did more with less money.

 

[Pattergen]

For what? 20 minutes?

It's impressive in that it's a great action film that has absolutely no action until the last 20 minutes!

Last twenty minutes? There's a hell of a lot of action before Ripley goes on her quest for Newt and takes on the Queen.

I'll admit that there is a bit of a drag around when Newt is found, but its all action other than that. Besides, that isn't what I was talking about. I was talking more your comments about the film feeling cheap.

Saw your reply above. I appreciated the beginning scenes. It linked the two movies together pretty well and gave a strong base of how the first film effected Ripley's character. Plus, I thought there was plenty of Alien action in the film.

 

[Willco]

Last twenty minutes? There's a hell of a lot of action before Ripley goes on her quest for Newt and takes on the Queen.

I'll admit that there is a bit of a drag around when Newt is found, but its all action other than that. Besides, that isn't what I was talking about. I was talking more your comments about the film feeling cheap.

It does feel cheap. Where are all the aliens? Where's the guns ablazing? Almost all the action sequences save for the climax at the end are left up to the imagination. It's even less violent than the original. It utilizes a few sets to good effect, but it's nowhere near as impressive as Ridley Scott's original.

It's a great example of Sci-Fi made on the cheap, but again, it had $10 million more than Scott did when he filmed the original. I'm not sure if the 8 year difference would equal the same budget due to inflation, but I would guarantee that Scott could use the money better. He did.

EDIT: I also agree that the quiet moments and character interaction are good, but it doesn't necessarily make for a more suspenseful movie.

I think the important thing is that Alien 3 and Alien: Resurrection had bigger budgets, effects and sets at their expense and wound up being a fraction of the film Aliens was (and still is). It's a good flick, but it's really overrated, especially in comparison to the original.

 

[darscot]

Saying there not allot of aliens shown from the get go I could agree with. But the initial drop ship flight is action. There is a tonne of suspense in the first entry to the compound. It's called build up. I think it's more of his style not to show you everything from the start that's just a good movie.

 

[darscot]

I think your just confused on the type of movie it is. It's not your standard garbage no story non stop shooting only the bad guys get hit movie. It's a great movie with all the elements. That's what Cameron does best he manages to squeze all aspects of film into his movies.

 

[Willco]

Saying there not allot of aliens shown from the get go I could agree with. But the initial drop ship flight is action. There is a tonne of suspense in the first entry to the compound. It's called build up. I think it's more of his style not to show you everything from the start that's just a good movie.

Not showing anything doesn't make a good movie. Ridley Scott also left a good deal to the imagination, but you never got the feeling like the budget wasn't there. There are numerous shots in Aliens where an army of aliens is alluded to, but we see glimpses of one or two and some nice editing. It's a cheap trick. The sentry guns that fire and fire on this endless onslaught of aliens, that we of course never see, is also a nice cheap trick.

Drop ship flight is action? Because the picture is moving? I'm really not excited by people dropping in a ship. I guess maybe I'm not CRAZY HARDCORE or something. Game over, man! Game over!

 

[Willco]

I think your just confused on the type of movie it is. It's not your standard garbage no story non stop shooting only the bad guys get hit movie. It's a great movie with all the elem,ents. That's what Cameron does best he manages to squeze all aspects of film into his movies.

Yes, because the original was NO STORY, NON-STOP SHOOTING. I'm not saying Aliens is the same and I'm glad Cameron didn't make some tacked-on sequel that just rehases the original. It's a good flick, certainly one of the better Sci-Fi movies out there, but it doesn't have all the elements, it is flawed and it is cheap.

 

[darscot]

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I could care less if the budget is there. Budget has little to do with great film. Cameron is lucky though he seem to get to spend whatever the hell he fells like. He is the exception to the rule.

Edit: Were not comparing it to the original were comparing it to to other Cameron films. He is basically the best "action" film maker of the time.

 

[ballhog]

The answer is Aliens, but that's easy. What's your favorite Ruggero Deodato movie? I choose Cannibal Holocaust, I thought it was super!

 

[Screaming_Gremlin]

Aliens is definitely my favorite, followed by T2 and True Lies.

 

[Willco]

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I could care less if the budget is there. Budget has little to do with great film. Cameron is lucky though he seem to get to spend whatever the hell he fells like. He is the exception to the rule.

Edit: Were not comparing it to the original were comparing it to to other Cameron films. He is basically the best "action" film maker of the time.

It's hard not to compare it to the original when it's a direct sequel. And if a film is great, you're right -- budget should have little do with it. However, once a film has flaws and one of them is the budget, and it shows, it is a problem. The best films, even the cheap ones, never make us have this discussion. George Lucas made the original Star Wars on a modest budget and it turned out to be amazing.

But even compared to other Cameron flicks, it feels cheap. I don't have this problem with any of his other flicks. James Cameron made The Terminator, not a necessarily high budget movie, and again, at it's time it was awesome. Cameron's version of the Aliens universe was just a bit too ambitious for his budget. And my feeling is, that if you're a good director, you know your limits and try not to stretch them.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the focus on Aliens was the Queen. And it paid off! It has a terrific climax. But it's at the sacrifice of the rest of the movie.

I'm not saying it's a bad movie, but I definitely think it's overrated. If you look at it objectively, it's probably one of his best efforts, but it's certainly not without its flaws.

 

[Goreomedy]

Willco, don't you purport to be cinephile?

No offense, but your comments show an ignorance that even freshmen film students shake before their second semester.

Not showing anything doesn't make a good movie.

The script for Aliens is used by many screenwriting professors as an example of building suspense through reservation, developing character with action, genre mixing, and of using a strong female protagonist.

There were six outstanding Aliens created for this film, fully articulated, but kept in shadow or in quick-edits for most of the film... in order to let the viewer's imagination fill in the blanks. It's a technique Hitchcock perfected, and any horror director worth his salt relies on. And, it's what Spielberg championed with JAWS, after their shark prop gave them trouble throughout the shoot. Spielberg admits the film would have been weaker had they featured the prop as much as intended.

Aliens deserves every bit of acclaim is has received. It's a prime example of what can be accomplished when the writer/director truly understands the tricks of the trade.

 

[Prospero]

Goreomedy is on the money--in addition, I'd disagree with Willco's assertion that most of the money for Aliens was spent on the Alien Queen. Most of the money seems, to me, to have been poured into props and sets, which aren't expansive, but are insanely detailed. Cameron redresses the sets and shoots them from different angles sometimes to get more mileage out of them, but that's standard practice (and you have to see the movie several times to even notice it). And there's judicious and clever use of matte effects to fill out establishment shots.

Moreover, you don't see a whole hell of a lot of the Alien in the first movie, and once you do see it, it's painfully obvious that it's some really tall guy in a suit. Alien's a scary movie, but the terror's because of a good screenplay, not because of the visual effects, which are aesthetically stylish, but unconvincing.

The only thing that's ever seemed cheap to me about Aliens is some of the civilian costumes. There's one shot (when Ripley's trying out the power loader for the first time) when you can see that she's wearing standard-issue 1980s Reebok sneakers: cheap as hell.

 

[Willco]

Willco, don't you purport to be cinephile?

No offense, but your comments show an ignorance that even freshmen film students shake before their second semester.

I don't think I've ever said I was a film student. I'm certainly not. I do like films.

The script for Aliens is used by many screenwriting professors as an example of building suspense through reservation, developing character with action, genre mixing, and of using a strong female protagonist.

Strange that all these screenwriting professors use the script from Aliens when virtually all the elements you listed are in the far superior Ridley Scott original.

There were six outstanding Aliens created for this film, fully articulated, but kept in shadow or in quick-edits for most of the film... in order to let the viewer's imagination fill in the blanks. It's a technique Hitchcock perfected, and any horror director worth his salt relies on. And, it's what Spielberg championed with JAWS, after their shark prop gave them trouble throughout the shoot. Spielberg admits the film would have been weaker had they featured the prop as much as intended.

Actually, there were some cheap suits and detailed suits. That quick edit crap is bullshit. Cameron did try to leave stuff to the imagination, but his crew fully admits a lot of scenes, such as the ones with the sentry guns, are filmed that way because it would be impossible to film a whole bunch of aliens storming the gates with their modest budget.

Make no mistake. Money came into play here, several times.

Aliens deserves every bit of acclaim is has received. It's a prime example of what can be accomplished when the writer/director truly understands the tricks of the trade.

Aliens is a prime example of how a skilled director can carry a film, even though it's filmed on the cheap. I said it before and I'll say it again, it's a good film, but it's not without flaws.

Goreomedy is on the money--in addition, I'd disagree with Willco's assertion that most of the money for Aliens was spent on the Alien Queen. Most of the money seems, to me, to have been poured into props and sets, which aren't expansive, but are insanely detailed. Cameron redresses the sets and shoots them from different angles sometimes to get more mileage out of them, but that's standard practice (and you have to see the movie several times to even notice it). And there's judicious and clever use of matte effects to fill out establishment shots.

Actually, not a lot of money was poured into sets. A lot of it was built with junk and filmed using Cameron's neat camera tricks. I think he used the sets to great effect and he was limited with them and it's one of the strongest technical aspects of the film. But I already said that earlier.

As I said, the lack of ALIENS in a film called ALIENS is still inexcusable.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

I always liked the fact that you never really got a good long glimpse at the aliens...

I think the film is brilliant, regardless of how cheaply you're saying it was made. The actors made it just as good as the original by their handling of the situation under the stress, just like those in the original did.

 

[Willco]

I always liked the fact that you never really got a good long glimpse at the aliens...

I think the film is brilliant, regardless of how cheaply you're saying it was made. The actors made it just as good as the original by their handling of the situation under the stress, just like those in the original did.

I don't think it's brilliant, but it certainly is good. I think Cameron is a really smart, ambitious filmmaker too. It's fortunate that after this he was able to get the funds necessary to realize what he wanted to do to its maximum potential.

I will disagree about something. The supporting cast as a whole, is a lot better in the original, but the strength of Ripley's relationship with Newt allows me to forgive that.