Batman-Online.com

Since we've got several threads dedicated to Star Wars, I thought it was about time we had an all-purpose thread for the Alien series. Feel free to discuss, analyse and compare any and all of this franchise's cinematic entries, plus related comics, videogames and other peripherals.

I've been on a bit of a Joseph Conrad binge over the past few months, and last week I finished reading his 1904 novel Nostromo. It's an impressive work of literature, though a little uneven, slow and overwritten in places (you've got to expect that from Conrad). As I was reading it, I couldn't help wondering why the title of this book was chosen for the name of the spaceship in the first Alien film. I previously assumed it was because Conrad was in vogue at the time thanks to Apocalypse Now (though Alien was actually released a few months before Apocalypse Now). But having finished the book, I now believe the choice of name is more meaningful than that.


The novel centres around a civil war in a fictional South American country called Costaguana. At the heart of this conflict is the San Tomé Silver Mine. If you'll recall, the spaceship in Alien was a mining vessel. Here we get our first connection.

In the book Nostromo is the nickname of an Italian seaman whose real name is Giovanni Battista. He works for a shipping line called the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, or OSN Company for short. Throughout the novel OSN is often referred to simply as 'The Company', much like the Weyland-Yutani Corporation in the Alien films. Anyone who has read Heart of Darkness will recall that too features a shipping line referred to as 'The Company'.

The central and most exciting episode in the novel sees Nostromo attempting to smuggle the silver from the mine away from Costaguana to prevent it falling into the hands of the revolutionaries. Nostromo is now custodian of the mine's treasure, much the way the spaceship in Alien is custodian of the minerals mined by the crew. In the novel Nostromo hides the silver on an island, then sinks his own lighter and swims to shore to make everyone believe the treasure was lost at sea. In Scott's movie Ripley destroys her own spaceship and gets away in an escape vessel. In both stories the protagonist destroys their own ship, and the treasures they were transporting are lost and never recovered by their rightful owners.

Nostromo is haunted by the secret of the silver's location, much like Ripley is haunted by the trauma of her experiences. Both protagonists suffer from paranoia and unrest as a result of their past, prompting them to retread their steps in such a way that ultimately leads to their deaths. Obviously these parallels relate to the sequels and would not have influenced the writers of the first Alien film, but I thought they were worth noting anyway.

The name of Ripley's escape vessel, The Narcissus, is derived from the title of another Conrad novel, though I haven't read that one yet so I can't comment on its significance (or lack thereof). In James Cameron's sequel he called the Colonial Marines' transport The Sulaco. Sulaco is the name of a town in Costaguana in Conrad's novel. However I can't see any significance in the use of this name other than it being yet another reference to Nostromo.

Anyway, I just thought it was interesting how something as simple as the name of a spaceship can have a lot of meaning behind it. It just goes to show how much careful thought the writers injected into every detail.

I love the first Alien and enjoy Aliens and, perhaps controversially, the extended cut of Alien 3. Well, in for a penny, in for a pound, I actually like Alien 3 better than Aliens. The original is my favorite in the series though. I love its atmosphere, the set design, the characters talking over each other, its strangeness, its claustrophobic qualities, Jerry Goldsmith's score. It's one of my favorite films.

Alien 3 is a solid albeit flawed film. I'd rank it third according to objective quality, but it's my fourth favourite in terms of personal preference (though I haven't seen Covenant yet).

One area in which the Alien 3 Assembly Cut is unquestionably superior to the theatrical cut is editing. There are some major gaffs in the finished film concerning the deleted subplot about the prisoner Golic and the attempt by the inmates to trap the xenomorph. The omission of that sequence renders the earlier scene in the toxic waste containment chamber pointless, except to supply the punch line to the running gag about Aaron's '85' nickname. It also creates a plot hole regarding Golic's fate, since his death scene is removed entirely. Paul McGann is the fourth highest billed actor on the opening credits, and yet his character mysteriously vanishes halfway through the theatrical cut with no explanation. The Assembly Cut doesn't have that problem.

One scene I dislike in both versions of the film is the sequence where the inmates are trying to lure the xenomorph into the lead works. There's some inventive camerawork during this scene, but I don't think it works in terms of building suspense. All the corridors look the same, and with their backs to the camera most of the inmates look identical too. The 180-degree rule goes out the window thanks to all the POV shots. Consequently the sequence has zero sense of spatial continuity, which makes it impossible to track the progress of the inmates' plan. What the scene needed was cutaways showing Ripley monitoring their progress on a computerised map. That way you could see the doors blinking off one by one and you'd have a sense of how the plan was progressing (similar to the computer displaying the amount of drone gun ammunition in the extended cut of Aliens). But we don't get anything like that. And since the entire set piece goes on for the best part of ten minutes, it negatively impacts the pacing of the final act by deflating the tension in the lead-up to the dénouement.

Another problem I have is with the Charles Dance character. He's introduced as Ripley's chief confidante in the opening act of the film, only to be unceremoniously bumped off just seconds after we learn the truth about his back story. His premature death prevents the writers from making anything out of his tragic past. It's set up as this great mystery, but then doesn't really go anywhere because he's eliminated mere seconds after it's revealed. I suppose the filmmakers' intention was to shock the viewer with a Janet Leigh–style red herring. But I always find it a tad awkward how abruptly Ripley's confidence shifts to the Charles S Dutton character. I think perhaps Clemens and Dillon should have been amalgamated into a single character: a doctor-turned-religious leader would have made for an interesting concept.

Despite these quibbles, there's a lot to admire in the film. Alex Thomson's cinematography is superb and beautifully complements the industrial production design. I don't think Elliot Goldenthal's score is as good as the music in the previous two films, but it's still a decent soundtrack. The Foley makes excellent use of low frequency sound, and that contributes a lot to the film's ambience. There's a high quality ensemble of British and American actors, though many of their characters are sorely underwritten. The film's bleak nihilistic tone is both a blessing and curse – it deprives us of three of the most beloved characters from the previous film, but also gives the movie its distinctive nightmarish atmosphere. As a setting, Fury 161 has a strong sense of character, and I thought the concept of the custodial brotherhood was interesting.

Overall Alien 3 a massive step down from the first two films, but an interesting picture in its own right.

Strangely enough, I watched the original Alien film only a day ago. Funny how this stuff works out.

Alien is a near perfect film in my opinion. It's pure cinema.

The strength of the film is in how it establishes the characters and the settings they inhabit. We get to know these people well enough to care about them, to see all their little ticks and to get an idea of who does what. From my point of view Yaphet Kotto and Ian Holm have the standout performances. They are brilliant. Yaphet struck a chord with me because of how we first meet him. He's a jokey kind of guy who is doing all this for the money. So when his mood changes into concern and fear, you know the situation is dire. And Ian Holm really comes into his own once the twist plays out. Much like Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal, he makes you afraid of this character and it's all done through body language and facial expressions.

This is a film that looks amazing. The sets are literally out of this world, and for a 1979 film it doesn't really seem dated at all.

Alien is a film that has beauty in its simplicity. A member of the crew becomes infected, the Xenomorph gets loose on the ship and it gradually picks them all off, except for Ripley. Many films these days could learn something from Alien. Instead of biting off too much and having a mediocre result, they should focus on a few things and nail them. Alien is a slow burn type of film but it always manages to engage your senses and maintain your interest, which I think is a problem with other films which attempt to replicate these types of scenarios. Simply put....they're boring.

Alien doesn't feel like a chore to watch. It also helps greatly that I find the Xenomorphs fascinating for a variety of reasons.

I'm going to re-watch Aliens in a couple of days and I'm looking forward to it. I haven't seen these movies for a long time. From memory, Alien and Aliens were easily the best of the franchise. I don't really like the others as much, even though Alien 3's extended cut has merit. But I'll see if my opinion changes on that front.

The screenplay for Alien (1979) might be the best script for any science fiction film ever. The characterisation is top notch and the overlapping dialogue feels organic and believable. The interaction between the crewmates tells us a lot about their personalities.

Dallas is the stoic leader who strives to maintain a cool head. He distances himself from his crew a number of times throughout the film and seems to enjoy solitude (when he's communicating with Mother, when he's relaxing in the Narcissus listening to Mozart). He's the liaison between Mother and the Nostromo's human complement; the mouthpiece for the Company's directives. He tries to remain logical and stoic, but in the end his compassion defeats him. It's his compassion that compels him to ignore quarantine protocol and bring Kane aboard the ship. It's his compassion that spurs him to instruct Ash to cut the facehugger from Kane, and which drives him to go into the ventilation system in place of Ripley. He tries to remain detached from emotional decision making, but in the end his feelings get the better of him.

Parker initially seems the most mercenary of the group, but he's also the most proactive when it's time to fight. He has an aggressive and subversive streak that prompts him to question orders and spout provocative remarks. But he also has a humorous, personable quality that endears him to his crewmates. He can be headstrong at times. Perhaps even blunt. But ultimately Parker is one of the bravest characters in the film. He doesn't hesitate to rush to his crewmates' assistance when they're in danger. He helps hold down Kane when the latter begins convulsing, he rescues Ripley from Ash, and he gives his life trying to protect Lambert from the Xenomorph. The opening act of the film instils a low expectation of Parker in the mind of the viewer, but in the end he rises above it and earns our respect.

Brett is the most laidback of the crew. He's a classic beta male who's happy to follow Parker's lead and let others do the thinking for him. Compared to the other male characters, he's purely reactive. His sluggish reticence when looking for Jones (the cat) reveals his timidity. This is a guy who can't make important decisions and needs others to guide him. Left to his own devices, he's useless. But working as part of a team, he has his place.

Lambert's probably the character with the least development, though she still serves a function as a more stereotypically passive female counterpoint to Ripley. The Director's Cut reveals some hostility between her and Weaver's character, with Lambert striking Ripley after she refuses to let Kane back aboard the ship. Again, this is an example of her more conventionally female characterisation. Where Ripley is cool and logical, Lambert is emotional and impulsive.

Kane's a difficult character to assess because we don't get much time to know him. He seems curious and intuitive, challenging Dallas and Lambert to press on when they first encounter the wreckage of the alien vessel. Of course it's his curiosity that eventually leads to his downfall. Interestingly, John Hurt was not the first choice to play Kane. Originally Jon Finch was cast in the role but had to drop out due to reasons of health during his first week of filming.


I've often wondered what kind of impact this film might have had on Finch's career had things gone according to plan. He was a successful screen actor in the seventies, starring in major productions such as Polanski's Macbeth (1971) and Hitchcock's Frenzy (1972). I think Alien would have given his career a much needed shot in the arm towards the end of that decade.

Ash is clearly the most sinister character in the film. Even before we discover the truth about his nature, he displays a dry demeanour and passive aggressive temperament that puts him at odds with his more emotional crewmates. He seems particularly disdainful towards Ripley and apparently resents the fact she outranks him. She's just a navigator after all, while he's a scientist. Listen to the condescension in his voice when he answers her questions about the facehugger, and you can hear his narcissistic personality shining through. He's a calculating and manipulative loner whose outward calmness belies a hidden agenda. There's a particularly interesting reaction shot of Ash during the chestburster scene. Just when Kane starts to convulse, the camera cuts to Ash and we see him calmly observing his shipmate's fit.


I always wonder if he knew this was going to happen. He was the science officer, after all. Had he detected the alien in Kane's chest? Was he just waiting for it to hatch?

And then there's Ripley, who is just about the best female hero in the history of science fiction cinema. She's intelligent, practical and calm. Every decision she makes is the logical one, though she suffers the resentment of her crewmates for doing things by the book. I've always found Sigourney Weaver attractive, but the character as presented on screen is not overtly sexualised. Her courage and practicality come first. Her looks are incidental. It's quite telling that the part was originally written with a male actor in mind. Yet Ripley also has a strong feminine presence that comes across through Weaver's performance. Ripley is assertive without being overbearing. A good example of this is the scene where she confronts Ash about his letting Kane aboard the ship. Ash is adversarial, while Ripley remains calmly remonstrative. She gradually loses that coolness as the situation grows more desperate. But it's a steady process. She doesn't immediately fall apart the way Lambert does.

Obviously the actors deserve a lot of credit for helping define these characters. But so much of what makes them compelling is there in the script. I also admire how the film is structured and paced. The first third is a slow burn science fiction mystery. The middle act is your classic And Then There Were None plot, with the crew being picked off one by one. It's essentially a haunted house story, only instead of a haunted house it takes place aboard a spaceship. And then the final act is pure survival horror.

Aliens (1986) is my favourite entry in the series and the one I enjoy revisiting most. But objectively speaking, the first film is the finest.

I watched Aliens yesterday. I concur the original film is better, but I do admire the sequel.

I admire that it *is* a sequel but it also provides us with a new type of experience.

The film begins where the original ended, albeit 57 years later. I love that mindf*** because it instantly changes the context of the new film. The events of Alien are still at the front of Ripley's mind even though it's now ancient history. It also makes the characters of Alien forgotten people. They basically died for nothing and the characters of Aliens don't really believe Ripley's story or fully comprehend the severity of the threat they face.

So again, I appreciate the smooth transition from Alien to Aliens.

Alien is indeed the perfect science fiction film scenario, just as Die Hard is the perfect action film scenario. Aliens has similar tropes, namely an AI robot who we initially doubt considering the events of Alien. But as a point of difference he proves his worth and helps save the day. We once again have Ripley, flamethrower in hand, walking about an environment rigged to explode, but once again, the scenario is twisted enough to feel fresh.

The premise of Aliens, a bunch of heavily armed Marines going into an environment, fully prepped and aware of an alien entity, is what sells me on the film. It's the exact opposite of what Alien presented. There, the characters were caught off guard and had to improvise with whatever tools they happened to have. I actually prefer that, but the contrast was there to be made by James Cameron and he was smart to go down that road.

The special edition of Aliens is undoubtedly the better experience in my opinion, even if only for the sentry gun sequence. I also feel that the sequence showing Newt's father getting face hugged also added something, both to the sense of dread for the viewer and and emotional resonance it gives Newt.

I like that Cameron introduced the Alien Queen. It adds something to the species and further drives home the bug/ant vibe. In my head canon, the Xenomorphs eggmorph people when an Alien Queen is not present (as per the deleted scene from Alien). And when a Queen is present, they simply bring them back to the hive to the eggs that have already been laid. I don't think we need to have one or the other - both concepts can co-exist.

All in all, it's a solid movie.

I have opinions on Alien 3 already but I'll share them once I watch the film again.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 16 Jul  2017, 10:59
The special edition of Aliens is undoubtedly the better experience in my opinion, even if only for the sentry gun sequence. I also feel that the sequence showing Newt's father getting face hugged also added something, both to the sense of dread for the viewer and and emotional resonance it gives Newt.

The extended version also includes the subplot about Ripley's daughter, which adds a lot of depth to her relationship with Newt and the film's overall themes of motherhood. I only found out recently that the picture of Ripley's adult daughter is a photo of Sigourney Weaver's mother, English actress Elizabeth Inglis. I always assumed it was Weaver herself made up to appear older. Her mother bore a strong resemblance to her.

Some people have criticised Aliens for having so many structural parallels with the first film, but that never bothered me. I admit some of those parallels are simple repetition, like the twist about the monster stowing away aboard the escape vessel for one last showdown. But other parallels are used as red herrings to deliberately mislead the audience. For example, the scene where Bishop is examining the facehugger beneath a microscope. This clearly echoes a similar scene with Ash in the first film, and the effect is to plant suspicion in the mind of the viewer. We expect Bishop to turn out like Ash. But in the end Bishop turns out to be a good guy, and it's the affable human Burke who is revealed as the real monster.

I remember Ridley Scott once saying he was partly inspired by Star Wars to make Alien. I always liked the idea of the Alien universe being broad and expansive like the Star Wars universe. I find the films that expand upon the mythology tend to be more satisfying than the ones which simply rehash earlier ideas. Aliens is one of the films that adds new elements to the universe. The first film gave us:

•   The Nostromo
•   LV-426
•   The crashed alien spaceship and 'space jockey'
•   The facehugger
•   The Xenomorph.

Aliens gives us:

•   The terraforming colony
•   The Colonial Marines, plus all their weapons and vehicles
•   The Sulaco
•   The alien nest
•   The Xenomorph queen

A little repetition is acceptable as long as something new is added by way of payment. Aliens does that. In my opinion, it's one of the all-time great sequels.

Absolutely. A criticism I see from people is how Aliens reduced the creatures to cannon fodder. Sure, plenty of Xenomorphs get shot. But the Marines are not shooting rubber bands. These are using high powered guns and at close range. Considering the Marines are meant to be highly trained and competent, I have zero problem with the film communicating that fact through their actions. An alien gets shot, a Marine gets covered in acid. That's a good tradeoff, and considering the Alien hive was huge, they probably weren't going to kill them all anyway. They were always a threat.

The sentry gun sequence allows the viewer to see that the creatures can reason, retreat and formulate another strategy to get inside. It also creates tension in the fact the Marines hope the Aliens don't come crashing through the doors once the bullets stop. It's very well done and I don't think we see one frame of an alien the whole time. It's all communicated via the ammunition countdown. Mystery and tension is achieved in a minimalistic way.

I like the Predators because they are a more savage version of Batman. They have an honor code but will rip out your spine if you're deemed fair game. They're cool characters and I have a lot of time for them too.

But because this thread is about the Aliens I'll say this.

The Aliens are far more effective creatures in terms of horror and creepiness. Take my five reasons:

1. Aliens don't need weapons. With acid blood, a second mouth, claws and tail....they ARE the weapon.
2. They are stealthy. They can climb on walls and stick to the shadows as good as any creature.
3. They are strong and fast. Even if you were smarter than one it wouldn't really mean that much.
4. They are wild animals and therefore are way more unpredictable. They don't discriminate.
5. Their reproductive cycle is beautiful in how disgusting it is. You die as the alien is born.

I love how Xenomorphs don't have eyes. They're pure instinct. In terms of aesthetics, they're near perfect. Just great.

Nothing in the Predator universe is as creepy as a facehugger, a chestburster or a bunch of people cocooned. As said, I love the Predators, but in terms of an alien species, the Xenomorphs take the 'most alien' prize. Their design helps a lot.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 18 Jul  2017, 15:22
Absolutely. A criticism I see from people is how Aliens reduced the creatures to cannon fodder. Sure, plenty of Xenomorphs get shot. But the Marines are not shooting rubber bands. These are using high powered guns and at close range. Considering the Marines are meant to be highly trained and competent, I have zero problem with the film communicating that fact through their actions. An alien gets shot, a Marine gets covered in acid. That's a good tradeoff, and considering the Alien hive was huge, they probably weren't going to kill them all anyway. They were always a threat.

If anything, I'd say the badass nature of the marines makes the Xenomorphs even scarier. The crew of the Nostromo are ordinary civilians. The marines are an elite fighting unit similar to the SAS or Delta Force. And ultimately they still get creamed. Only Hicks survives. We see how cocky the marines are before they enter the nest in the atmosphere processing plant. Their confidence almost diminishes the threat posed by the Xenomorphs. But all of that changes after their first encounter with the creatures. Most of their team are wiped out in a matter of seconds and the survivors are devastatingly demoralised. It's a sobering moment where the full magnitude of what they're facing becomes clear, both to the characters and to the audience. And for the rest of the film they're on the defensive, just fighting to stay alive.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 18 Jul  2017, 15:22The sentry gun sequence allows the viewer to see that the creatures can reason, retreat and formulate another strategy to get inside. It also creates tension in the fact the Marines hope the Aliens don't come crashing through the doors once the bullets stop. It's very well done and I don't think we see one frame of an alien the whole time. It's all communicated via the ammunition countdown. Mystery and tension is achieved in a minimalistic way.

That's a superb sequence. It baffles me that it was removed from the theatrical cut.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 18 Jul  2017, 15:22Nothing in the Predator universe is as creepy as a facehugger, a chestburster or a bunch of people cocooned. As said, I love the Predators, but in terms of an alien species, the Xenomorphs take the 'most alien' prize. Their design helps a lot.

Yeah, there's a strange nobility to the Predators. They're still horrific monsters, but they adhere to a code of honour. The Xenomorphs, on the other hand, are a plague. There's absolutely nothing beneficial about their existence. They're disgusting, slimy repulsive vermin contaminating every world they touch. The only other movie monster that comes close in terms of sheer repulsiveness would be the Thing, but even then I'd say the Xenomorphs are worse.

There's a strong Freudian psychosexual dimension to the Xenomorphs' appearance and life cycle. So much of the imagery surrounding them is disturbingly suggestive. This goes back to H R Giger's Necronom IV (1976), the painting that inspired the Alien concept. It's a grotesquely perverse image, but weirdly compelling.


A Predator will kill you, rip out your spine and use your skull as the centrepiece of its latest art project. A Xenomorph will cocoon you, leave a facehugger to orally rape and impregnate you, then watch you explode giving birth to another Xenomorph. I wouldn't want to be killed by either of these monsters. But if I had to choose, I'd be volunteering my skull for the Predator's mantelpiece. Better that than end up like Kane.

Okay, so it's Alien 3 time.

I think it's a severely underrated movie.

People seem to hate the idea of killing Newt and Hicks. James Cameron even saw it as a sign of disrespect. Me? I love it and if you're offended that's the whole point. The Alien franchise is not a fairytale. It's a nightmare that never ends. Ripley had a new family (Newt especially as a daughter figure) and she literally wakes up to an hellish new reality. The autopsy of Newt is one of the most difficult and intense scenes to watch in the franchise, and it captures what Alien 3 is all about. Drama, sadness but also a cold and clinical numbness.

By Alien 3, Ripley is a shell of a woman who has seen too much and has lost too many friends.

This wasn't a typical Hollywood film. It's on the depressing side but for Alien, I think it's perfect. Bishop's remains being cobbled together by Ripley to understand what happened on board the Sulaco is damned good because it provides a touch of continuity with Aliens but maintains the gloomy vibe. Bishop, a machine, would rather choose 'death' over his current state of disrepair. And Ripley gives him that without saying a word of goodbye.

Ripley finding out she has a Queen inside her is another standout scene. She realizes this is the end, and she has to die to protect humanity. And of course she does that. Ripley making the ultimate sacrifice isn't a Hollywood ending. It's sad and depressing, but that's the reality of the xenomorph. The Alien took everything from her. She had nothing to live for. Having the Queen inside her gave Ripley purpose in a twisted way.

I dig that the film makes a point that these characters are nothing but murderous rapists. They're criminals. We had scientist/explorers in the original and marines in the sequel. Each film gave us something different. Alien 3 also added to the mythology like the other two films by showing how the hosts' DNA carries over to the alien. The example is the dog, or the ox in the Assembly Cut. It's a minor addition to the lore, but given so much was already established in the other films, that's something I'm okay with. I also liked the angle of the Alien refusing to kill Ripley due to the Queen inside of her.

Alien 3 is not as good as the first two and it does lack a certain polish. But I think it's very underrated and does represent a good ending to the franchise. It's better than it's reputation suggests.

I watched Alien: Covenant on Blu-ray recently. I find it impossible to discuss the film without first giving my thoughts on Prometheus. So here are my reviews of both films.

---

I don't know what the story is behind this film, but watching it I get the impression one writer sat down and tried to come up with an intelligent and serious science fiction script, then someone else looked at that script and said, "It needs more monsters and gore." So another writer was brought in to rewrite the screenplay and add some illogical and superfluous set pieces to satisfy the popcorn crowd. I don't know if that's what actually happened, but that's the feeling I get whenever I watch this movie. There are two forces pulling in different directions: one is trying to deliver a thought-provoking drama exploring themes of God, creation and the meaning of life; the other is trying to deliver a monster movie with lots of explosions, slime and fan service nods to the earlier entries in the franchise.

It's the latter agenda that prompts the most illogical behaviour on the part of the protagonists. When confronted with a weird alien snake-thing, the so-called scientists try tickling it. When they find an Engineer head, the first thing they do is try jumpstarting its central nervous system with electric shocks. Needless to say neither of these scenarios ends well. There's a certain point in the film where you'd expect the characters to pack up and leave. People are dying, they're clearly ill-equipped to deal with the situation, so why stick around just to get killed? Shaw and Weyland are given personal reasons for remaining, but the rest of the characters aren't. And that brings me to the next problem with the script: characterisation.

There are a lot of players in this film, but most are simply redshirts whose sole purpose is to die during the film's set pieces. A handful of characters at the forefront are fleshed out and given proper motivation. Amongst these, David and Shaw are the strongest and most interesting. Michael Fassbender gives a wonderful performance and I love the whole Peter O'Toole thing he has going on. I also like Noomi Rapace as Elizabeth Shaw. She's a strong female heroine, but never comes across as a Ripley clone. I also dig the fact she was named after one of my favourite Doctor Who assistants. Then you get a character like Fifield, who's characterised in comically broad strokes. Just listen to his dialogue when he first meets Rafe Spall's character: "I ain't here to be your friend, I'm here to make money. You got that?" This less-than-subtle telegraphing of his personality defects is unfortunately typical of the script's bluntness. Another piece of equally awkward dialogue is the following exchange between Shaw and Vickers:


Those lines don't flow organically. "We're going home" doesn't follow naturally from "We're not stopping anything." If Shaw had specified a strategy that precluded journeying home (which is ultimately what happens when they ram the Engineer ship), then Vickers' response would make more sense. But at this point Shaw hasn't said anything like that. She just says they need to stop the ship. The only reason Vickers says, "We're going home" is to set up Shaw's response of: "If you don't stop it, there won't be any home to go back to." And that line's only there so it can be included in the trailer. The script clearly needed work.

You could remove most of the silly and superfluous scenes in Prometheus without harming the main story. The subplot about the two blokes who get lost in the caves is only there to facilitate the set piece where they get killed by the weird snake-thing, and that scene is only there to facilitate the later set piece where Fifield turns into a super zombie and thins the herd of redshirts (and the only purpose of the redshirts in the film is to die in that scene). You could pull out the thread connecting all of these elements and it would have minimal impact on the central storyline. This is what I mean when I say it feels as though there were two writers working at cross purposes.

Negatives aside, I actually do like Prometheus. The film looks great. It has a really strong ambience, a production design that feels true to Giger's original vision, and it strikes a decent balance between practical and digital effects work. I love the score by Marc Streitenfeld and the performance by Fassbender. I like the scope of its ambition; that it poses philosophical questions without pretending to have all the answers. I like the fact that it's Prometheus, not Alien: Prometheus. It's its own film with its own identity – a standalone science fiction story that occurs within the Alien universe, but isn't obligated to connect too closely with any of the other films. It's a flawed but ambitious semi-failure with a unique style of its own. In that sense, I'd compare it to David Lynch's Dune (1984); another deeply flawed sci-fi film that I'm very fond of.

---

This film is a massive disappointment and fails to live up to the potential hinted at by its predecessor. Shaw is killed off in favour of a far less interesting female lead (all the characters in Covenant are dull and underwritten except for David), her journey to the Engineers' home world is only vaguely outlined, and the conclusion of her quest for answers is denied a proper resolution. But most frustratingly, all of these things happen off screen. It's as if Ridley Scott buckled under the pressure of creating something new and so altered course into more familiar waters. The end result: an unimaginative retread of earlier Alien films with nothing new of substance on offer.

The Engineers' home world is dull and anticlimactic. I was expected some twisted Gigeresque vision of a dark paradise, similar to the Cenobites' home world in the Hallraiser films or the Borg cube in Star Trek. Instead we get an unimaginative planet with a single architecturally-bland city. Where was the dark paradise we were promised? Where was Giger's visionary aesthetic? All of the weird creatures featured in the film are just variations of the xenomorph design, only with minimal alterations (different coloured skin, different shaped head, etc). They had an opportunity here to come up with fresh new creature designs, and they squandered it. I also thought the CG alien effects were some of the worst I've seen in any recent film. In the 1979 picture, Scott gave us fleeting glimpses of the xenomorph to tremendous effect. In Covenant he shows far too much of the monsters and they look laughably fake. It's a shame, because the production values elsewhere in the film are otherwise excellent.

The illogical and carless behaviour of the characters in Prometheus is repeated by the protagonists in Covenant. They don't bother wearing spacesuits when exploring an alien world. When they stumble across some unidentified black fungi, they place their faces in close proximity and inhale the mysterious black spores that burst from within (hence why they don't wear spacesuits - such logical precautions would prevent the 'idiot plot' from advancing). Everything that was bad about Prometheus is present in Covenant. Sadly the imagination, atmosphere and creativity of Prometheus are all absent from Covenant.

Part of the problem with retreading familiar ground is the lack of suspense. There's no tension when Crudup's character is peering into the egg, because we've seen this scenario play out before and know exactly what's going to happen. Likewise for the chestburster scene. The final act is particularly bad in this regard. We get the overused cliché of the xenomorph stowing away aboard the spaceship, followed by the equally tired cliché of it being blasted out into space. And in between we get a cheesy sex/death scene in a shower ripped straight from a Friday the 13th movie. Prometheus may not have hit all its targets, but at least it was aiming high. Covenant, by contrast, is aiming for the lowest common denominator. And it still misses. They simply didn't have enough new ideas to justify making another film.

That said, Covenant isn't completely worthless. Aside from the poor CG creature effects, the production values are generally good. So is the cinematography. Fassbender is on top form as always and carries pretty much the entire movie. The scenes between David and Walter are the best in the film and the middle act in general is the most compelling part of the narrative. But even that's overly familiar and ends up falling back on a predicable formula. As soon as David and Walter started fighting, I knew exactly where the plot was going. Anyone who's seen the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode 'Datalore' will know precisely where it's going. Just replace a facial twitch with a severed hand, and you've got a near identical sequence of events.

Mark Kermode said it best when he remarked that Scott is only as good as the script he's directing. He's a talented artist, but he's not a particularly good storyteller. Give him a good script and you get a good film. Give him a bad script and you get Alien: Covenant.

---

Here's how I'd rank the Alien franchise, from worst to best, in terms of objective quality. I'm not counting the Alien vs. Predator films because they're not canon.

6) Alien: Resurrection (1997)
5) Alien: Covenant (2017)
4) Prometheus (2012)
3) Alien 3 (1992)
2) Aliens (1986)
1) Alien (1979)

And here's how I'd rank them in terms of personal preference

6) Alien: Resurrection (1997)
5) Alien: Covenant (2017)
4) Alien 3 (1992)
3) Prometheus (2012))
2) Alien (1979)
1) Aliens (1986)

Prometheus originally was supposed to have more Alien elements in it, similar to Alien: Covenant. At one point, Charlie and Shaw were to make love and right in the middle, the chestburster would tear through Charlie. It was a scene that either could have been as shocking and surprising as the original film's chestburster scene or would have been schlocky.

Around the time Damon Lindeloff was brought on board, the chestbursters, eggs, and xenomorphs were removed. I could be wrong, but I think I heard the "Hey, let's pet the alien creature in the same or similar creepy tomb place we ran away from earlier" scene predates Lindeloff.

If that's the case, then it sounds as if Lindelof deserves credit for helping Prometheus circumnavigate the pitfalls that crippled Covenant. At least Prometheus had a sense of individuality, visual flair and imagination to it. If Scott and co can't conjure those same qualities again, then there's really no point in continuing the franchise. They'll just end up making the same stories over and over, but with added fan service. 

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 16 Jul  2017, 19:34
I remember Ridley Scott once saying he was partly inspired by Star Wars to make Alien. I always liked the idea of the Alien universe being broad and expansive like the Star Wars universe. I find the films that expand upon the mythology tend to be more satisfying than the ones which simply rehash earlier ideas.

Coming back to this point in the wake of Sean Connery's passing, I want to highlight Peter Hyam's 1981 film Outland as an example of the sort of movie I was talking about. I should preface this by saying that while there were plenty of Alien rip-offs in the early eighties, Outland is not one of them. If anything, the plot of Outland is far more indebted to Fred Zinnemann's 1952 western High Noon than it is to Alien. That said, Hyams cited the latter film as a major influence on the look and feel of Outland, and that's where we find the similarities.


The movie takes place on a mining colony on Io, Jupiter's innermost moon, where a Federal Marshall (played by Sean Connery) assumes command of the local police force. He soon uncovers a conspiracy involving the sale of drugs that increase the miners' productivity while triggering psychotic breakdowns that turn them violent or suicidal. Connery learns the outpost administrators are complicit in the affair, and when he confronts them about this he is told to turn a blind eye. Connery refuses to play ball, and the villains respond by calling in assassins from a nearby space station to deal with him.
 

The Continental Amalgamated company could be seen as a rival to Weyland-Yutani, or even Seegson from the video game Alien: Isolation (which is excellent, btw). All three are powerful corporations whose shady and amoral business practices result in needless death and further impede the protagonist's quest. The Federal Marshalls in Hyams' film can also be seen as a precursor to the Colonial Marshalls in Alien: Isolation.


Many of the crewmembers that served on Alien also worked on Outland, including key figures like costume designer John Mollo, model maker and special effects artist Martin Bower, and composer Jerry Goldsmith. The 'used future' aesthetic displayed in Alien's model work and production design is clearly referenced in Outland, and the costumes and technology feel totally consistent with the dark sci-fi universe Scott created in his 1979 film.


In fact Outland arguably comes closer to capturing the grounded, gritty atmosphere of the original Alien movie than Cameron did in the official sequel. Don't get me wrong, Aliens is a superior film to Outland. I'm just saying that the tone of Hyams' movie feels closer to Scott's. Even the opening sequence is similar, where the film's title appears against a backdrop of space.


Outland was adapted into a novelisation by Alan Dean Foster, who also wrote the adaptations of the Alien films. It was also adapted into a comic book serialised in Heavy Metal and written by Jim Steranko.


In my head canon, I consider Hyams' film to be canonical to the Alien universe. An Alien 1.5, so to speak. I'm bringing it up now partly as a tribute to Connery, but also to illustrate the Alien universe's potential to be more than just an endless series of retreads of the 1979 movie. Alien is a sci-fi horror film, Aliens is a sci-fi action/war film, Alien 3 is a sci-fi prison film, and Outland is a sci-fi western. This franchise works best when it's expanding its mythology and dipping its toes into different genres, as opposed to simply retelling the same xenomorph plot over and over.

Unfortunately I also had the misfortune of recently seeing Alien 2: On Earth (1980), Ciro Ippolito's unlicensed Italian 'sequel' to Ridley Scott's original film. There were many Alien rip-offs in the early eighties, but this was the only one where the filmmakers had the gall to market it as a sequel. It's pure trash, and aside from a few laugh-out-loud bad moments it really isn't worth watching. The only scene even remotely resembling anything from the original Alien is the bit where a creature bursts from a woman's face, and you can see that in the trailer.


Come to think of it, all the good bits are in the trailer. Notice that at least a third of the trailer is just stock footage. Unless you're into really bad low-budget European horror films, you should avoid wasting your time on this one. I was honestly struggling to stay awake during it.

Outland, however, is definitely worth a watch.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  9 Jul  2017, 19:07
Since we've got several threads dedicated to Star Wars, I thought it was about time we had an all-purpose thread for the Alien series. Feel free to discuss, analyse and compare any and all of this franchise's cinematic entries, plus related comics, videogames and other peripherals.

I've been on a bit of a Joseph Conrad binge over the past few months, and last week I finished reading his 1904 novel Nostromo. It's an impressive work of literature, though a little uneven, slow and overwritten in places (you've got to expect that from Conrad). As I was reading it, I couldn't help wondering why the title of this book was chosen for the name of the spaceship in the first Alien film. I previously assumed it was because Conrad was in vogue at the time thanks to Apocalypse Now (though Alien was actually released a few months before Apocalypse Now). But having finished the book, I now believe the choice of name is more meaningful than that.

(https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/alienfilmspedia/images/4/48/USCSS_Nostromo_002.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20111224171809)

The novel centres around a civil war in a fictional South American country called Costaguana. At the heart of this conflict is the San Tomé Silver Mine. If you'll recall, the spaceship in Alien was a mining vessel. Here we get our first connection.

In the book Nostromo is the nickname of an Italian seaman whose real name is Giovanni Battista. He works for a shipping line called the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, or OSN Company for short. Throughout the novel OSN is often referred to simply as 'The Company', much like the Weyland-Yutani Corporation in the Alien films. Anyone who has read Heart of Darkness will recall that too features a shipping line referred to as 'The Company'.

The central and most exciting episode in the novel sees Nostromo attempting to smuggle the silver from the mine away from Costaguana to prevent it falling into the hands of the revolutionaries. Nostromo is now custodian of the mine's treasure, much the way the spaceship in Alien is custodian of the minerals mined by the crew. In the novel Nostromo hides the silver on an island, then sinks his own lighter and swims to shore to make everyone believe the treasure was lost at sea. In Scott's movie Ripley destroys her own spaceship and gets away in an escape vessel. In both stories the protagonist destroys their own ship, and the treasures they were transporting are lost and never recovered by their rightful owners.

Nostromo is haunted by the secret of the silver's location, much like Ripley is haunted by the trauma of her experiences. Both protagonists suffer from paranoia and unrest as a result of their past, prompting them to retread their steps in such a way that ultimately leads to their deaths. Obviously these parallels relate to the sequels and would not have influenced the writers of the first Alien film, but I thought they were worth noting anyway.

The name of Ripley's escape vessel, The Narcissus, is derived from the title of another Conrad novel, though I haven't read that one yet so I can't comment on its significance (or lack thereof). In James Cameron's sequel he called the Colonial Marines' transport The Sulaco. Sulaco is the name of a town in Costaguana in Conrad's novel. However I can't see any significance in the use of this name other than it being yet another reference to Nostromo.

Anyway, I just thought it was interesting how something as simple as the name of a spaceship can have a lot of meaning behind it. It just goes to show how much careful thought the writers injected into every detail.

I have no real stake in this franchise. But what the hell, why not?

I'm in the middle of a Halloween movie binge. But after I finish up with Michael Myers, maybe I'll give these movies a look.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  1 Nov  2020, 18:15
Coming back to this point in the wake of Sean Connery's passing, I want to highlight Peter Hyam's 1981 film Outland as an example of the sort of movie I was talking about.

I've never seen this, so I'll put it on my list. Sean's Bond very nearly went into space in You Only Live Twice, before he was stopped by Blofeld. Here he goes the whole hog like his own version of Moonraker. That's my hook here. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Re: Alien - I respect the first two films a great deal, and acknowledge the third as a thematically sound conclusion, for the reasons I explained on the previous page. But like Jurassic Park, I don't see Alien as an ongoing franchise. Resurrection had a decent hook with Ripley being a clone, but the execution did nothing for me. And the longer things go on the concept can't help but feel repetitious. Having one film (or if it can be stretched tastefully into a tight trilogy) avoids that. Less really is more in certain circumstances. The Alien is a scary mystique – that is reduced with the prequels, which I find boring and choose to ignore. But the first two especially? Cinematic gold.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  2 Nov  2020, 20:23I have no real stake in this franchise. But what the hell, why not?

I'm in the middle of a Halloween movie binge. But after I finish up with Michael Myers, maybe I'll give these movies a look.

Michael Myers is certainly more seasonal at present, but the Alien films are perfect for those dark winter nights that lie between now and Christmas.

Returning to the Joseph Conrad connections in my original post, I should also note that Ridley Scott's first film, the superb historical drama The Duellists (1977), was adapted from a short story of Conrad's titled 'The Duel'. Scott's next project after that was Alien.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue,  3 Nov  2020, 02:29I've never seen this, so I'll put it on my list. Sean's Bond very nearly went into space in You Only Live Twice, before he was stopped by Blofeld. Here he goes the whole hog like his own version of Moonraker. That's my hook here. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I hope you enjoy it, TDK. I rate it as Connery's best sci-fi film. Admittedly I still haven't gotten round to watching Zardoz (1974), but most of what I've heard about that movie has been negative. Time Bandits (1981) is good, but it's more fantasy than sci-fi and Connery's role is comparatively small. Highlander II (1991) is bad, and so is Meteor (1979). So that leaves Outland as the best of his science fiction projects. It's not a great movie by any means, but it's a solid sci-fi thriller that deserves more recognition than it gets. Alien fans should find a lot to like about it.

For those who do enjoy Outland, I'd also recommend 2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984), Peter Hyams' underrated sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).


Has anyone on this site played Alien: Isolation? I've delved into quite a few Alien games over the years, including various arcade titles, Alien 3 on the NES, Alien Trilogy on the PS1 and Aliens vs. Predator on the PC, but I reckon Isolation is easily the best game in the series. Due to its intensity, I tend to play in short sessions of no more than about 20-30 minutes at a time. I'm playing on the medium difficulty setting and even that's proving to be a challenge. I hate to imagine what the hardest difficulty must be like.


The story takes place between the events of the first two Alien movies and puts the player in the role of Amanda Ripley, Ellen Ripley's daughter. Amanda goes to Sevastopol Station after she learns the flight recorder from the Nostromo is being analysed there. Sevastopol is run by the Seegsan conglomerate, a less powerful rival of the Weyland-Yutani Corporation that specialises in the manufacture of synthetics known as Working Joes. These androids are more basic and less lifelike than those created by Weyland-Yutani, and they bear a creepy visual resemblance to the Autons from classic Doctor Who.


Predictably, the Working Joes begin to malfunction and start massacring any humans they encounter. Amanda has to sneak through the station looking for clues to what is happening while simultaneously avoiding the homicidal Joes and packs of human scavengers that will kill her on sight. To make matters worse, a xenomorph shows up and begins prowling Sevastopol's corridors and air vents. Owing to the advanced AI, it can appear at any point in the game and hunts the player in unpredictable patterns. Stealth gameplay therefore takes precedence, with particular importance placed on the motion sensor mechanics that allow you to detect any nearby enemies.


It's a very frightening and intense experience that evokes the older survival horror games of the late nineties and early noughties while bringing them up to date with modern graphics and superb sound design. However if you're looking for action, then you'd best look elsewhere. There are times in the game when you'll have to fight, but weapons and ammunition are scarce and a stealthy approach is generally rewarded more than a head-on attack. This adds to the player's sense of vulnerability, but can be frustrating for Han Solo types who prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around.

Alien: Isolation is available on every platform and I'd recommend getting the latest versions that include the 'Crew Expendable' and 'Last Survivor' DLC. These expansions are based on the 1979 film and include voice acting by several of the original cast members, including Sigourney Weaver.

I'll end this post with a brief mention of Xenogenesis, a short film James Cameron directed in 1978. This is his earliest directorial credit according to the IMDb and the ending clearly foreshadows Ripley's battle with the xenomorph queen in Aliens. Also note how the villainous robot resembles the HK-Tanks from The Terminator franchise. Here's the entire film for anyone who's interested.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  2 Nov  2020, 20:23I have no real stake in this franchise. But what the hell, why not?

I'm in the middle of a Halloween movie binge. But after I finish up with Michael Myers, maybe I'll give these movies a look.

Watched Alien the other night. Not bad! It's been decades since I last saw it. So in a way, it was sort of like watching it for the first time (again).

I think this is the tone of this franchise that I will prefer. A suspense/thriller/horror approach to sci-fi.

One reason the movie plays for me is because in a horror movie, the characters HAVE to do stupid things. Otherwise, you don't have a movie. Allowing a potentially hostile alien creature onto the ship is the gold standard of stupid. You don't do that. Ever. But there was an agenda behind doing so and I completely buy it. I really enjoy the paranoia, the furtive glances over corners, the fear of some nameless terror on the ship killing everybody, the panic that sets in, it's so good.

In fact, it's so good that I'm kind of reluctant to watch the sequels. I've seen Aliens decades ago and Resurrection when it first came out. I don't remember either of them remotely approaching the OG Alien film. Knowing that, and knowing Alien 3's rep, I'm not sure that watching the sequels is such a great idea.

Separately, you've got Alien Resurrection and Halloween Resurrection. Both of them are considered notable low points in their respective franchises. Maybe the moral of the story is never make a sequel to something with "Resurrection" in the title?

Aliens tonight. As I say, I haven't seen it in decades. So I dimly remembered some parts (basically nearly everything with Bishop) and totally lost others (the queen getting dropped out the airlock).

All in all, it's a worthy sequel. And tbh, it's probably hard to follow Ridley Scott's thriller/horror approach. So, something a bit more like an action movie probably was a good call. And to give Cameron credit, the shift in tone isn't jarring at all. Noticeable but not disruptive.

I've heard all sorts of horror stories about Alien 3. How bad is it really?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  5 Nov  2020, 02:12I've heard all sorts of horror stories about Alien 3. How bad is it really?

The main issue many people have with Alien 3 is that it undoes the satisfying conclusion of Aliens. Most fans developed an emotional attachment to Newt, Hicks and Bishop, and on that score Alien 3 kicks the viewer in the gut and leaves them with a bad taste in the mouth. It's by far the darkest and goriest entry in the series and the overall tone is very bleak and depressing. The downbeat ambience is arguably one its greatest strengths, but also makes it a difficult film to like. Another problem is that there was a lot of drama behind the scenes. The producers were constantly butting heads with David Fincher, and the end result feels like its pulling in several different creative directions at once. Alien and Aliens are clearly the works of auteur filmmakers, but Alien 3 is the work of an auteur whose vision was compromised by studio interference. It's a bit of a mess really. If you have the option, I recommend watching the Assembly Cut which is more cohesive than the theatrical version and includes some important deleted material.

Is it a bad film? No, I don't think so. It has a good cast, it's generally well directed by Fincher, and the industrial production design and cinematography by Alex Thomson are excellent, albeit extremely grim. It's just a very unpleasant film and one that feels unnecessary after the events of the previous movie. It concludes Ripley's story and offers a decisive ending to the trilogy. But did Alien really need to be a trilogy in the first place? Like The Godfather, Blade Runner and Terminator, Alien is one of those films that should have been a standalone venture. But then a visionary director made a sequel which, against the odds, defied everyone's expectations and turned out to be worthy of the original. Sadly the studios didn't know when to leave well enough alone and persisted with disappointing third entries (it's only a matter of time before Blade Runner 3 is announced). Alien 3 is part of that trend, though I'd say it's still a lot better than Terminator 3.

I watched the first three Alien films on consecutive nights back in September, and when viewed in sequence Alien 3's inferiority to its predecessors is painfully obvious. I'd still rate it above Resurrection, the Alien vs. Predator movies or Covenant, but that's not saying much. There are a lot of things I like about Alien 3, but I could never love it the way I do the first two films. I'll be genuinely interested to hear what you think of it, colors. If the original Alien is a 10/10 then I'd rate Alien 3 a 6/10, which in my book is a marginal thumbs up.

Just a few years ago, Neill Blomkamp pitched an idea to Fox for an alternate sequel to Aliens that would have retconned the events of Fincher's film. It had the support of Sigourney Weaver and Michael Biehn, but supposedly Ridley Scott torpedoed the project so it wouldn't distract from his prequel films. Here's some of the concept art from Blomkamp's pitch.


I don't know if this would have been better than the Alien 3 we got, but Blomkamp's vision seems to align more closely with what the fans wanted. Especially with regards to bringing back Hicks and Newt.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu,  5 Nov  2020, 13:40

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  5 Nov  2020, 02:12I've heard all sorts of horror stories about Alien 3. How bad is it really?

The main issue many people have with Alien 3 is that it undoes the satisfying conclusion of Aliens. Most fans developed an emotional attachment to Newt, Hicks and Bishop, and on that score Alien 3 kicks the viewer in the gut and leaves them with a bad taste in the mouth. It's by far the darkest and goriest entry in the series and the overall tone is very bleak and depressing. The downbeat ambience is arguably one its greatest strengths, but also makes it a difficult film to like. Another problem is that there was a lot of drama behind the scenes. The producers were constantly butting heads with David Fincher, and the end result feels like its pulling in several different creative directions at once. Alien and Aliens are clearly the works of auteur filmmakers, but Alien 3 is the work of an auteur whose vision was compromised by studio interference. It's a bit of a mess really. If you have the option, I recommend watching the Assembly Cut which is more cohesive than the theatrical version and includes some important deleted material.

Is it a bad film? No, I don't think so. It has a good cast, it's generally well directed by Fincher, and the industrial production design and cinematography by Alex Thomson are excellent, albeit extremely grim. It's just a very unpleasant film and one that feels unnecessary after the events of the previous movie. It concludes Ripley's story and offers a decisive ending to the trilogy. But did Alien really need to be a trilogy in the first place? Like The Godfather, Blade Runner and Terminator, Alien is one of those films that should have been a standalone venture. But then a visionary director made a sequel which, against the odds, defied everyone's expectations and turned out to be worthy of the original. Sadly the studios didn't know when to leave well enough alone and persisted with disappointing third entries (it's only a matter of time before Blade Runner 3 is announced). Alien 3 is part of that trend, though I'd say it's still a lot better than Terminator 3.

I watched the first three Alien films on consecutive nights back in September, and when viewed in sequence Alien 3's inferiority to its predecessors is painfully obvious. I'd still rate it above Resurrection, the Alien vs. Predator movies or Covenant, but that's not saying much. There are a lot of things I like about Alien 3, but I could never love it the way I do the first two films. I'll be genuinely interested to hear what you think of it, colors. If the original Alien is a 10/10 then I'd rate Alien 3 a 6/10, which in my book is a marginal thumbs up.

Just a few years ago, Neill Blomkamp pitched an idea to Fox for an alternate sequel to Aliens that would have retconned the events of Fincher's film. It had the support of Sigourney Weaver and Michael Biehn, but supposedly Ridley Scott torpedoed the project so it wouldn't distract from his prequel films. Here's some of the concept art from Blomkamp's pitch.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/4f/37/174f37c871cd0179eb9b41be52cfdd16.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/J3yz14K.png)

(https://www.denofgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/alien-blomkamp-2.jpg)

(https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/5kBDMWY.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSBTT9qUMAAsjY0?format=jpg&name=large)

(https://media.aintitcool.com/media/uploads/2015/merrick/alienblomkamp_large.jpg)

(https://townsquare.media/site/442/files/2015/02/Neill-Blomkamp-Alien-630x420.jpg?w=980&q=75)

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1mTSgDNLzRV3lbc2nIIlXA-C6FE=/0x0:598x541/1220x813/filters:focal(286x189:380x283):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/58154131/Screen_Shot_2017_12_30_at_8.41.41_AM.0.png)

(https://cdn-stream.httpid.com/c201/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Alien-5-Neill-Blomkamp.jpg)

I don't know if this would have been better than the Alien 3 we got, but Blomkamp's vision seems to align more closely with what the fans wanted. Especially with regards to bringing back Hicks and Newt.

That's some pretty sick concept art, I have to say. I'd be very interested in seeing that movie.

As to the other tho, it seems weird to blow the dust off the franchise after six years with Alien 3 just to shoot things straight to hell like that. Stupider things have happened, obviously, (Terminator: Woke Fate, I'm looking pretty much right at you) but with a franchise like Alien with so much positive energy behind it and such a dedicated fan following, you'd think you'd have to try to screw it all up.

Anyway. I guess I'll give Alien 3 a day in court. At its core, this franchise is about deadly aliens so as long as there's at least some of that, maybe I can roll with it.

Hell with it, let's get going on Alien 3.

From the jump, yeah, I see why fans would be upset when popular characters like Newt and Hicks got killed off-screen unceremoniously. Killing those characters off is one thing. Killing them off like that is something else.

Horror movies need the characters to make stupid decisions. Scott's initial film showed them making stupid decisions for plausible reasons. But here, Ripley is stupidly keeping a major secret for no obvious reason so far.

We'll see how this plays out tho.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  8 Nov  2020, 01:52
Hell with it, let's get going on Alien 3.

From the jump, yeah, I see why fans would be upset when popular characters like Newt and Hicks got killed off-screen unceremoniously. Killing those characters off is one thing. Killing them off like that is something else.

Horror movies need the characters to make stupid decisions. Scott's initial film showed them making stupid decisions for plausible reasons. But here, Ripley is stupidly keeping a major secret for no obvious reason so far.

We'll see how this plays out tho.

I reiterate that I have no investment in this franchise.

So apart from the above caveats, I really have no real objection to Alien 3. It gets a bit dull at times, which is a problem. There's not enough suspense to keep you on the edge of your seat as there would be with Scott and there's not enough action to keep your adrenaline up as there would be with Cameron. But in the main, as a casual observer at best, Alien 3 comes off as a serviceable sequel and a not terrible way to wrap up the series, as was apparently the intent.

It's hardly mandatory viewing. I'm the guy in the room who sees considerable value in The Godfather Part III. I can tolerate a ho-hum third entry in a series under the right circumstances. But for me, the real films in this series are the first two and everything else is an afterthought at most.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  8 Nov  2020, 01:52
From the jump, yeah, I see why fans would be upset when popular characters like Newt and Hicks got killed off-screen unceremoniously. Killing those characters off is one thing. Killing them off like that is something else.

This is the best part of the movie for me, and the crux of the oppressive gloom it provides. RIPLEY WAKES UP TO A NEW NIGHTMARE. These deaths hurt, which should be the desired outcome in a horror genre. You should feel uneasy. Other than Ripley carrying a Queen, the Alien typically does not discriminate. It does two main things: survive and kill. If people embrace the concept of Alien 3 they'll have a much better experience. But I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 16 Nov  2020, 02:32

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  8 Nov  2020, 01:52
From the jump, yeah, I see why fans would be upset when popular characters like Newt and Hicks got killed off-screen unceremoniously. Killing those characters off is one thing. Killing them off like that is something else.

This is the best part of the movie for me, and the crux of the oppressive gloom it provides. RIPLEY WAKES UP TO A NEW NIGHTMARE. These deaths hurt, which should be the desired outcome in a horror genre. You should feel uneasy. Other than Ripley carrying a Queen, the Alien typically does not discriminate. It does two main things: survive and kill. If people embrace the concept of Alien 3 they'll have a much better experience. But I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Look, I get that. I can even somewhat agree. I'm not particularly bothered by those deaths. But fans wanted closure on those characters and I can't fault them for being upset about not getting it.

I get that too, and it's fair from their point of view. Being a casual fan of the series does allow me liberties in my assessments. But I am fascinated by abrupt tragedy without closure, such as the conclusion of 1969's On Her Majesty's Secret Service. It just happens, and as Ras Al Ghul said, "death does not wait for you to be ready. It is not considerate, or fair."

"Love has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight."

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  8 Nov  2020, 01:52
From the jump, yeah, I see why fans would be upset when popular characters like Newt and Hicks got killed off-screen unceremoniously. Killing those characters off is one thing. Killing them off like that is something else.

Agreed, I don't think Alien 3 is a terrible film but the way it pisses on Aliens makes me hate it. Also, the magic Alien eggs getting on the Sulaco makes zero sense. As far as I'm concerned Aliens was the ending of this series.

Quote from: BatmanFurst on Mon, 16 Nov  2020, 06:12
Also, the magic Alien eggs getting on the Sulaco makes zero sense.

Hard to deny that. While I'm okay with offing Newt, I don't think I've seen a believable explanation about the egg being on board. 

Quote from: BatmanFurst on Mon, 16 Nov  2020, 06:12
As far as I'm concerned Aliens was the ending of this series.

The third film seems to be a niche product. I'm not a huge Alien 3 fan, so don't interpret my postings that way. But I do appreciate the thematic decisions and overall atmosphere. The first two are absolutely the best, and all I really need if push comes to shove. They have more polish.

Speaking on the Happy Sad Confused podcast, Christopher Nolan has revealed his love for Alien 3. When speaking of his fondness for the Fast and the Fury franchise, and the problem of having to make each sequel bigger than the last, he references Fincher's attempt to make Alien 3 smaller than Aliens. Around the 34:00 mark:

Quote"You don't want them smaller. It's the Alien 3 lesson that Fincher learned. You can do it but it's not going to make anybody happy, even though personally I love that film, a lot more than he does I think [...] I've never dared mention it to him. He's very aware of the flaws and he's very aware of the appalling experience he had making it, and how put upon he was, and I can truly only imagine. But his talent shines through in that movie. I came out of that film and had a conversation with the guy I was with and right away I said, 'I've just seen the new Ridley Scott – I know who the new Ridley Scott is, and it's David Fincher.' And I wasn't wrong. It's there in the movie, whether he knows it's there or not. But his talent is absolutely there."

https://cms.megaphone.fm/channel/happysadconfused?selected=VIA9917702756

A new Alien TV series has been announced. It'll air on FX and Ridley Scott is serving as executive producer.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 10 Dec  2020, 15:24'I've just seen the new Ridley Scott – I know who the new Ridley Scott is, and it's David Fincher.'

All this time, I thought I was the only one who held their work (in film in general, not specifically this franchise) in just about equal regard. My affection for Fincher's work overall edges out Scott. Such is life. But yes, in my book, the two are practically neck and neck. Nice to know I'm not the only one thinking this way.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 10 Dec  2020, 23:51
A new Alien TV series has been announced. It'll air on FX and Ridley Scott is serving as executive producer.

(https://i.postimg.cc/gJX3tmVr/alien-tweet.png)

This is something I'm interested in. I wouldn't mind if it was an adaption of Alien Isolation, which I consider to be canon.

Alien: Isolation is great. I've been playing it a lot over the past week. One of the reasons I enjoy it, besides it being a satisfying expansion of the Alien mythology, is that it reminds me of the classic survival horror games of yesteryear. Survival horror has always been one of my favourite gaming genres. The heyday for that type of game was between the release of the first Resident Evil in 1996 and RE4 in 2005. Back in my teens and early twenties I used to play every survival horror game I could get my hands on.

Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Clock Tower, Alone in the Dark, Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem, Fatal Frame/Project Zero, Dino Crisis, Parasite Eve, Cold Fear, Haunting Ground, Dead Space, The Thing, Onimusha, Ghost Hunter, Cursed Mountain, The Blair Witch Project PC games, The X-Files: Resist or Serve, Dementium, Forbidden Siren, and many, many others.

Alien: Isolation is the closest I've seen any modern game come to capturing the feel of those old classics. There's an episode of the sitcom Spaced where Simon Pegg's character praises Resident Evil 2 as "a subtle blend of lateral thinking and extreme violence" and that description could equally apply to Alien: Isolation. Every Alien fan should experience it.

A new Alien videogame is coming out later this year titled Aliens: Fireteam. Apparently it's a co-op third-person shooter set 23 years after the events of Alien 3.


I think most fans would prefer a new single-player survival horror game in the style of Isolation, but Fireteam might be ok.

Disclaimer: I am not a gamer by any stretch of the imagination.

Still, Aliens: Fireteam sounds kind of interesting. I'm not promising I'll check it out. But don't be too surprised if I do.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed,  3 Mar  2021, 20:52
I think most fans would prefer a new single-player survival horror game in the style of Isolation, but Fireteam might be ok.

I'm busy enjoying Hitman 3, which is my favorite game series of all, which is all about stealth and creativity. That suits Alien as well, but I'm glad they're going the heavy artillery route this time. Isolation is great, but there's been many times when I've been wanting to cut loose rather than hide and make do with limited resources.

There's definitely room for both styles of game within the franchise. The key here is in the title. It's Aliens: Fireteam, not Alien: Fireteam. Alien: Isolation reflected the tone of Scott's original film, and this game should reflect the more action-oriented style of Cameron's 1986 movie.

Back when I was a teenager I used to play the Aliens versus Predator games on PC (I hated the AVP movies, but the games were good), which also gave you the option of playing as a marine.


I never played the Colonial Marines game that was released back in 2013, but I've heard it was disappointing. So we're due for a good Aliens shoot 'em up.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 10 Dec  2020, 23:51
A new Alien TV series has been announced. It'll air on FX and Ridley Scott is serving as executive producer.

(https://i.postimg.cc/gJX3tmVr/alien-tweet.png)

This passed on by without much comment from me. I should say that this does seem kind of interesting. Particularly, the angle of the show being set on Earth. Off-hand, I'm not aware of anything in this franchise dealing with Earth too much (unless Alien vs. Predator counts).

Between the newer Scott prequels, this TV show and the video games, somebody behind the scenes is obviously very keen to explore this franchise.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu,  4 Mar  2021, 12:58
(I hated the AVP movies, but the games were good)

I quite like the concept of the first AvP but it's nonetheless a misfire. The other films are scars on both characters are should never have made it past the scripting stage.

The Batman/Aliens crossover comic is surprisingly good, and has great art and lots of atmosphere with the jungle and spaceship settings. The nightmare of Bruce's parents dying via chestburster is a standout, and Batman himself is enjoyable as a badass detective. If anyone hasn't read it I recommend doing so.   

Marvel is publishing a new Alien one-shot this summer titled Aliens: Aftermath.

QuoteThis July, Marvel Comics will honor the 35th Anniversary of Aliens with a special one-shot by writer Benjamin Percy (WOLVERINE, X-FORCE) and artist Dave Wachter (IRON FIST: HEART OF THE DRAGON). Celebrating one of the most influential science-fiction films of all time, ALIENS: AFTERMATH #1 will be a double-sized issue featuring an all-new story set in the same terrifying universe of Aliens. The action will take place at Hadley's Hope and present a terrifying possible future for LV-426, the location of the groundbreaking 1986 film.

(https://terrigen-cdn-dev.marvel.com/content/prod/1x/alienssp2021001_cov.jpg)

It's been 35 years since the tragedy of the Hadley's Hope colony, but what happened during that ill-fated venture has been shrouded in mystery. A renegade crew of investigative journalists are heading towards the moon that Weyland-Yutani has wiped from all records, and they'll bring back the truth even if it kills them...and what remains in that bombed-out site will try to do just that. Here's what Percy had to say about penning this new saga:

"When I was a kid, I had a door-length poster of a xenomorph crashing through the wood, tearing off the hinges, creeping forward with a drippy fanged smile. This is the image I would drift away to every night, which no doubt influenced my imaginative hard-wiring, along with the films and comics that I watched and read over and over and over. To this day, I can't grip a knife without wanting to lay my hand on a table and tick-tick-tick the point between my splayed fingers—I can't play a game of ping-pong or Clue without yelling, 'Game over, man.'—I can't scratch an orange tabby without whispering , 'You are my lucky star....lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky.' I've been in love with these stories most of my life, and it's truly an honor and a delight to celebrate the 35th anniversary of Aliens with a script inked in acid blood."

ALIENS: AFTERMATH #1
Written by BENJAMIN PERCY
Art by DAVE WACHTER
Cover by PHIL NOTO
On Sale 7/14

https://www.marvel.com/articles/comics/35th-anniversary-aliens-aftermath-1-announcement

A brief history of unmade Alien sequels, including the Blomkamp thing... which SN has already made to sound amazing but somehow it sounds even more amazing in this video. Alas and alack...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDDtmpg9Ayk

Some more concept art from Blomkamp's movie appeared online earlier this month.


Now that the Mouse is calling the shots (urgh) I suppose there's a possibility Disney might go ahead and revive this project. Multiverses/alternate timelines are becoming an increasingly common occurrence with modern film franchises: Superman, Terminator, Highlander, Halloween, etc. The Alien franchise already has a split timeline owing to the discrepancies between the AvP movies and Scott's prequel films, where the latter effectively retconned the Weyland storyline from the former, so I don't think fans would object to another branching timeline. Not if the finished product was good enough to justify it.

In other Alien news, a new trailer for Aliens: Fireteam Elite was released last week.


It looks like the player will be visiting an Engineer temple at some point during the game.

The series, which will not focus on the iconic "Ripley" character played by Weaver, will take place on Earth and explore "what happens when the inequality we're struggling with now isn't resolved."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jul/2/alien-fx-series-inspired-by-inequality-were-strugg/

I'll pass.

Same haha!

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  3 Jul  2021, 13:05explore "what happens when the inequality we're struggling with now isn't resolved."

So begins the Disney-era of Alien.

Quote from: BatmanFurst on Sat,  3 Jul  2021, 15:32
Same haha!

Alien films aren't creative black holes, but things have really hit rock bottom when identify politics has infested the monster genre. Sequences of xenos killing wokesters isn't going to appease me, either. I don't want to see these characters or themes present, period. Weaver played a strong woman and that's great. Yaphet Kotto and his character arc was brilliant, too. But get out of town with struggles of 'inequality'. Focusing heavily on that transforms the series into something else entirely: a vehicle for politics with the Aliens becoming incidental. Entertainment should be about attracting the widest audience possible, but this only serves to divide it.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun,  4 Jul  2021, 13:53

Quote from: BatmanFurst on Sat,  3 Jul  2021, 15:32
Same haha!

Alien films aren't creative black holes, but things have really hit rock bottom when identify politics has infested the monster genre. Sequences of xenos killing wokesters isn't going to appease me, either. I don't want to see these characters or themes present, period. Weaver played a strong woman and that's great. Yaphet Kotto and his character arc was brilliant, too. But get out of town with struggles of 'inequality'. Focusing heavily on that transforms the series into something else entirely: a vehicle for politics with the Aliens becoming incidental. Entertainment should be about attracting the widest audience possible, but this only serves to divide it.

Assuming there is a semi-political dimension to the Alien series, I'd say it's that gigantic corporations view everybody an expendable cog in the machinery of commerce. Nobody and nothing is more sacred to them than profit.

I don't need some kind of "message" to these movies. But that one is waiting for someone to pick it up if they need some kind of "deeper meaning".

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  5 Jul  2021, 04:16
Assuming there is a semi-political dimension to the Alien series, I'd say it's that gigantic corporations view everybody an expendable cog in the machinery of commerce. Nobody and nothing is more sacred to them than profit.

I don't need some kind of "message" to these movies. But that one is waiting for someone to pick it up if they need some kind of "deeper meaning".

These days, the people siding with major corporations, establishment politicians and mainstream media call themselves 'the resistance'. They talk about the importance of human rights and stopping pollution while their masters happily do business with the worst offenders. The real juicy content of hypocrisy is staring everyone in the face but it won't be touched. We live in a dump of a world.

Expect Disney to bring this character to the silver screen so the Alien franchise has its own Groot. To bring "fun" and "joy" and all. Oh joy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAbE9yYIWpI&t

Earlier this week I re-visited Mario Bava's Terrore nello Spazio/Planet of the Vampires (1965), and while it's fresh in my memory I thought I might as well note some similarities between it and Ridley Scott's Alien (1979). Scott claims to have never seen this movie, as did Alien screenwriter Dan O'Bannon. However, O'Bannon later admitted that he had in fact seen and been influenced by it.

In both films the crew of a spaceship (Argos/Nostromo) detect a signal emanating from the surface of an unexplored planet (Aura/LV-426). They land on the planet's surface in order to investigate the signal's source.


The world that awaits them is a dark, inhospitable wilderness marked by jagged rock formations and smoky dust clouds.


The humans explore the planet until they find the ancient wreckage of a crashed alien vessel. Scott's film contains a low-angle shot looking up at the alien ship that recalls a similar shot from Planet of the Vampires, only in Bava's film it is a shot of the exterior of the protagonists' ship.


Bava later uses another similar low-angle shot when his characters encounter the wreckage of the ancient alien ship.


The interior of the alien wreck features tubular passageways with large round doors.


While exploring the ancient vessel, the humans find the skeletal remains of a giant creature. In Bava's film they find one of these giant skeletons outside the wreckage of the ancient ship and a second skeleton seated inside the vessel. In Scott's film they find just one.


Dan O'Bannon confirmed that he got the idea for the 'space jockey' from the giant skeleton in Bava's film. The Making of Alien book quotes him as saying:

Quote"I stole the giant skeleton from the Planet of the Vampires."

The nature of the alien menace in both movies is subsequently revealed to be a parasitic life form. In Bava's film the antagonists are spectral beings that possess the reanimated corpses of their hosts, while in Scott's film the parasite impregnates its host's body with its offspring. In both movies the surviving humans use flamethrowers to defend themselves against the alien threat.


And in both films the humans escape from the planet, only to then realise that the alien menace has infiltrated their ship using the body/bodies of their crewmate(s).

One last visual note to make about Planet of the Vampires is the recurring image of the crew's space helmets resting on the seats next to the ship's controls. This struck me as similar to the imagery of the Nostromo's autopilot system in Scott's film, which resembles a row of space helmets perched atop the crew's chairs.


I think that about covers the similarities between the two movies. The English-language poster for Planet of the Vampires shows the protagonists battling giant creatures that resemble the xenomorph from Alien. I think they're meant to be the giant skeletons, but at no point in the movie do those skeletons come to life and attack the humans like this. The rocket ship on the poster also looks nothing like the spaceships in the film, making this a good example of the way old b-movie posters would often portray scenes and images that weren't actually in the motion picture they were advertising.


The speculative fiction aspect of Planet of the Vampires makes it an interesting addition to Mario Bava's oeuvre, but I'm not sure I'd recommend it to modern viewers unless they already have an interest in retro sci-fi. It's an inferior film to Alien in every respect, and while it scores high on visuals and atmosphere, it rates low on characterisation and drama. With the exception of the lead actor and two attractive female co-stars, most of the other cast members appear interchangeable in their dimly-lit spacesuits. They're not individualised or adequately developed by the script, and consequently it's hard to care when one of them gets killed. This obviously is not the case in Alien, where each character death packs its own dramatic punch. But despite its flaws, Planet of the Vampires is not a terrible film and for fans of science fiction horror it's worth seeing at least once.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8zuLUNyVK4

Blomkamp was on Rogan and talked a bit about what his Alien project would've been last year. And somehow I completely missed it. But here it is anyway.

There's a new Alien film in the works. Fede Álvarez is writing and directing. Ridley Scott will produce.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/alien-movie-fede-alvarez-20th-century-studios-1235037155/

Fede Alvarez's participation indicates a horror tone. This could be interesting.

A new Alien game has been announced titled Aliens: Dark Descent.

Here's some concept art from the upcoming FX Alien TV series.


It looks nice, but I'm still not sold on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zzYnLOZ_0s

Personal preference:

1. Aliens - one of the best action films I've ever seen.
2. Alien - one of the best horror films I've ever seen.
3. Alien: Resurrection - not great but not bad. Just adequate
4. Alien 3 - not that good. Especially because they decided to scrap Newt and Hicks.

I know that this is art, and I like it!

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-clSIjasAAm8C4?format=jpg&name=large)

Director Fede Alvarez says Ridley Scott has seen an early cut of his movie Alien: Romulus and given it the thumbs up. Romulus, which will be the ninth film in the Alien franchise, is scheduled for release on August 16th 2024.

Little is known about the movie's plot at present, but I have low expectations. I've seen two of Alvarez's earlier movies – his 2013 Evil Dead remake and Don't Breathe (2016) – and I didn't care for either. Don't Breathe was ok, but IMO undeserving of the acclaim it received. The Evil Dead remake was extremely average, as was the more recent Evil Dead Rise. If Romulus can deliver a gripping story that expands the Alien lore in a satisfying way while doing something fresh with the familiar ingredients, then it might be worthwhile. If it's just a retread of the earlier films, then I don't seen the point. I don't want to write the movie off completely, because I still believe the Alien franchise has potential. It's not quite as far gone as Terminator, Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr Who, etc. But if Romulus disappoints, I'll have to consign Alien to the speculative fiction graveyard alongside those other franchises.

As a more general point, there are a lot of sci-fi sequels coming out in 2024: Transformers 8 (not counting the 1986 animated movie), Alien 9, Planet of the Apes 10, Godzilla 38! Right now the sci-fi movies I'm most looking forward to next year are Dune: Part II and Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.

Quote from: The Joker on Thu,  9 Nov  2023, 15:29I know that this is art, and I like it!

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-clSIjasAAm8C4?format=jpg&name=large)

What an amazing poster. Probably the best fan made Alien poster I've seen for the original film.

I watched the short film Rakka starring Sigourney Weaver and directed by Neill Blomkamp a year ago, and was amazed and impressed by how brutal it is. This is the sort of sci-fi horror artistry that Alien as a franchise hasn't had for a long time, and I think Blomkamp not being able to bring his vision to life is a missed opportunity. Watch this and imagine an Alien (or even a good Alien vs. Predator crossover) could be if the setting took place on Earth.

Just keep in mind that this is obviously ***NSFW***.

https://youtu.be/VjQ2t_yNHQs

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu,  5 Nov  2020, 02:12Aliens tonight. As I say, I haven't seen it in decades. So I dimly remembered some parts (basically nearly everything with Bishop) and totally lost others (the queen getting dropped out the airlock).

All in all, it's a worthy sequel. And tbh, it's probably hard to follow Ridley Scott's thriller/horror approach. So, something a bit more like an action movie probably was a good call. And to give Cameron credit, the shift in tone isn't jarring at all. Noticeable but not disruptive.

Since I just finished a rewatch of Aliens, I want to revisit this.

At this point, I'm torn as to whether I still like Scott's film better than Cameron's. Because Aliens does deliver the action-adventure quotient in a huge way.

Strangely enough, my quibble about Aliens is the fate of Burke. He needed to get his comeuppance, yes. But in retrospect, I think it should've been at the hands of one of the characters. There's poetic justice, I suppose, in Burke being killed by the very monster that he was trying to capture. Still, I think Ripley or MAYBE Hicks should've given Burke his due.

I also admit that my own biases could be clouding my judgment. I used to know a similar kind of ruthless, spineless little worm like Burke. And oddly enough, his last name was also Burke. So, that could be affecting the way I see things.

Still, it was a blast watching Aliens. I ate plenty of popcorn and had a great time with it.

On a semi-related note, between Alien, Halloween, The Matrix and maybe other franchises that I'm forgetting, I'm starting to think that titling any movie in your series with "Resurrection" is the kiss of death. Yes, I love Halloween Resurrection. But I love it because of its flaws. The facts are that those flaws exist and they're a major turnoff for 99% of audiences. Same with the flaws in the other films with "Resurrection" in their title.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  3 Feb  2024, 06:25At this point, I'm torn as to whether I still like Scott's film better than Cameron's. Because Aliens does deliver the action-adventure quotient in a huge way.

That's one of the eternal questions, like which is better out of Godfathers I and II. I think Alien is probably a better film, and certainly must be credited with introducing the entire mythology, but I generally enjoy Aliens more. It's a superb sequel that builds on the first film and expands the mythology. I'd rate them both 10/10, but if you told me I had to watch an Alien movie tonight, I'd pick Cameron's film.

As for which version of Aliens is better, the theatrical cut or the extended special edition, I'd take the extended version any day. The subplot about Ripley's daughter adds a whole extra layer to her character arc and to her relationship with Newt, and the sentry gun sequence is one of the most suspenseful and well edited scenes in the movie. I also like the before-and-after contrast we get from seeing what Newt and the colony were like before the Xenomorphs found them.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  3 Feb  2024, 06:25Strangely enough, my quibble about Aliens is the fate of Burke. He needed to get his comeuppance, yes. But in retrospect, I think it should've been at the hands of one of the characters. There's poetic justice, I suppose, in Burke being killed by the very monster that he was trying to capture. Still, I think Ripley or MAYBE Hicks should've given Burke his due.

You might enjoy the following deleted scene. It takes place during the sequence where Ripley is searching for Newt in the nest. It reveals that Burke's fate was not as quick as the final edit makes it appear.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  3 Feb  2024, 06:25On a semi-related note, between Alien, Halloween, The Matrix and maybe other franchises that I'm forgetting, I'm starting to think that titling any movie in your series with "Resurrection" is the kiss of death. Yes, I love Halloween Resurrection. But I love it because of its flaws. The facts are that those flaws exist and they're a major turnoff for 99% of audiences. Same with the flaws in the other films with "Resurrection" in their title.

I'm trying to think of an exception to that rule, but I can't. Hopefully Mel Gibson's sequel to The Passion – which is subtitled The Resurrection – will break the trend.

I prefer the original film but have plenty of time for Aliens. They're some of the best films ever made in my book. I started out as a big Predator fan and there was no question I preferred them over the xenos. But over time I've gone the other way. The original Predator film is a classic, but I find the xenomorph lifeform and the futuristic settings more interesting. Just like the first two Terminator films, we will always have the first two Alien films and that's all we'll ever need.

I bought the set of all six Alien films. But my only real priorities were the first three. But watching Aliens last night made me curious about the others. I've seen Resurrection at least once before. Which was arguably one too many.

But I never did get around to Prometheus. Given my respect for Ridley Scott, that seemed like an unnecessary oversight. And so, here I am.

I'm 48:56 into Prometheus and I'm enjoying it. I understand what others mean when they say this isn't a conventional Alien film. Which is whatever. Still, I am enjoying this thing as an imaginative sci-fi film. But as I say that, I do have to acknowledge that so far, this thing isn't shaping up to be my first choice if I want to watch a movie about xenomorphs tearing stuff up.

Alien EC Comics Style

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFVJeBiWoAAiHfm?format=jpg&name=medium)

Quote from: The Joker on Sun, 11 Feb  2024, 01:05Alien EC Comics Style

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFVJeBiWoAAiHfm?format=jpg&name=medium)

Very apt, given that Alien was partly inspired by stories published in EC titles. One in particular was 'Seeds of Jupiter' from Weird Science V1 #8 (July 1951), in which a mysterious orb falls from the sky onto an American aircraft carrier. It breaks open on impact and spills seeds onto the deck.


A sailor tricks his friend into eating one of the seeds. You can see where this is going. :D


The sailor does not react well.


His friends rush him to the ship's medical officer, who tries operating to save his life.


When they cut the sailor open a slimy alien emerges from his stomach.


The crewmen look on in shock as the gruesome little creature flees overboard.



But it later returns, having rapidly grown to an enormous size.


On the Alien Quadrilogy DVD features Alien screenwriter Dan O'Bannon confirmed this story was an influence on the first movie:

Quote from: Dan O'Bannon'There were comic books too: EC's Weird Science and its companion publication, Weird Fantasy. I recall one fondly, about seeds from outer space which fell onto the deck of a Navy destroyer, and an incautious sailor ate one. A horrible, tentacled monster hatched out of him.'

In the 2019 documentary Memory: The Origins of Alien the filmmakers highlight some other comics that influenced the original film, but I forget what they were.

And while we're on the subject of comic connections, it's worth mentioning that Alien producer Walter Hill later went on to produce the HBO Tales from the Crypt TV series that adapted many of EC's classic horror comics. So he was clearly a fan of the publisher too.

Learn something new every day I guess.

I had no idea about the "Weird Science/Seeds of Jupiter" influence on Alien, but that's pretty cool.

I'll give it a shot. Looks interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDTQKDH9Qso

Interesting video speculating on how the film apparently takes place after ALIEN, but before ALIENS, and the idea of Big Chap possibly being brought back.

Really hope that's true. Not just because it would be cool to have that connective tissue to the first film, but in how it would again demonstrate how insanely resilient the Aliens are. No way a Predator could withstand that level of punishment and still clinging to some form of life. Given its close proximity to Isolation I'd love to see any references to that story. I'm happy to include that in official canon, and I hope I come to say the same for Romulus.

Unfortunately, I've never played "Alien Isolation", so I am not super-familiar with that story line, but I get the idea about the Alien being resilient being something that "Romulus" can take aim at. In doing so, that sort of direction would honestly give even more credence towards Ash's admission of having high regard of the Alien itself as the "perfect organism".

I have no idea how good "Romulus" will wind up being, but theoretically "Romulus" could provide something of a 'satisfying' Alien cinematic trilogy if it actually comes out good.

For simplification purposes.  ;D

Alien: Introduction to Ripley, the Nostromo crew, the 'planetoid' (LV-426) and the Big Chap Xenomorph.

Alien Romulus: Continues the story of the Big Chap Xenomorph as (it is found and awakened? Reverse engineered?) and attacks a young crew of space colonists.

Aliens: Returns to the story of Ripley as she is also found, brought back to LV-426, where she goes on to confront the Alien Queen (mother of Big Chap).

That's probably being too optimistic, but it's a thought that could work out given just how satisfying the new film will wind up being? Especially considering how you would be hard pressed to find fans of the franchise whom do not have misgivings about "Alien 3" and "Alien Resurrection". I do hope that Fede Alvarez, given the story's time frame between "Alien", and "Aliens", was at least cognizant of Ridley's Scott's directorial style and tried to follow suit to some extent (at least for the beginning and end sequences ... kinda like what was originally done for Batman Forever with filming Burtonesque opening and closing scenes) in order to make it blend in with "Alien".

This was something James Cameron noted on his commentary track for the "Aliens" DVD, as he says that he obviously wanted to put his own stamp into the franchise, but also was familiar with Ridley's style of directing, and shot the scene of Ripley and Jones the Cat being found in the escape shuttle using long lenses. As Cameron wanted "Aliens" to blend right from "Alien" if one wanted to do a double feature. Which makes all the sense in the world, cinematically.

Here is the quote:

"I went to school on Ridley [Scott]'s style of photography, which was actually quite a bit different from mine, because he used a lot of long lenses, much more so than I was used to working with." - James Cameron