So, I decided to finally watch the movie despite me knowing alot about the alien francise, but never watching anything but 4?
I all honesty. the sequel is better, it its a better horror and action movie. The original felt slow and just boring at times. And I didnt car for any of the chracters.
But 2 made it better and so much more fun to watch. more tense scences, when the alien queen comes out of the elevator, I was scared, Even though I knew the ending, I was scared they where not going to make it. And I feel it does the "Females can be both action heroes and nurturing at the same time" thing so much better, Newt at Ripley where great together.
Alien wasnt a bad film, it just wasnt fun.

It was also the first of its kind, kind of like how Star Wars made fantasy space opera explode. And, Alien is really a different genre than the sequel. Alien is pure horror, Aliens was an action movie.

I wasnt scared for much of Alien though.

I think Alien and Aliens are two very different kinds of movies. Alien is one of the most intense horror movies ever (especially in it's ability to actually terrify an audience as opposed to get some gag shocks out of them.

Aliens is less a horror film and more of a thriller to me. Of the two though, Aliens has aged better imo.

Alien has kind of become old hat in a way. Lots of the things it did, were still fresh at the time of it's release, but have since become staples of the genre (last woman standing, some member of the cast having an obsession with the creature killing them, corporate scheming behind the scenes). The movie was a much fresher film in 1979, so I can see how someone watching it today might be less impressed.

I mean, I still felt it was good on a technical standard and what it did.
But I can see, kinda how what star trek did with Sci-fi

It's like watching citizen kane. It invented half the conventions movies use today, but because those conventions have been done to death since then you've seen it all before and it doesn't seem special.

Most movies made in that era have not aged well.

Aliens is better, but Alien is still an excellent and groundbreaking film. If you can't see that for yourself, no one is going to be able to help you realize that.

I do like Aliens better (see the avatar), but they're both absolutely masterful genre-defining films...Alien starts slow, but it's great at building tension, and the acting is amazing. The scene where Dallas goes into the ducts makes me nervous every time, even though I know exactly what's going to happen (the scene in Aliens where the marines enter the hive gives me the same feeling...).

Of course, not every movie is for everyone!

 Grey Templar wrote:
Most movies made in that era have not aged well.

I'd say the area though that most films of that era have shown their age is in their olden times special effects. Alien, because of it's excellent set work and dark colors, I think has actually aged exceptionally well in this respect. Its still very good visually.

The area where its aged really, is in how much it's basic ideas have been copied and reiterated. So much so that I imagine people who've seen lots of horror films already and are just watching it for the first time, are already very familiar with the films elements and plot. About the only thing that really remains eternal is the Alien itself, which honestly, I don't think anyone can ever manage to recreate the same way again.

Its a generational thing. Young hipsters that are too cool for life aren't impressed by anything that's not completely CGI and they just won't get the point. Good money says you likely shrugged meh while watching Jaws.

Those movies are about the tension and getting into the viewers primordial headspace, which most current day films fail at horribly as they are focused on the dazzle and special effects.

The first time you see the chestburster it's borderline wee inducing, once you've seen it it's no longer nearly as terrifying. Watching the sequels first ruins the majesty of the original film as it waters down all the suspense elements of the unknown.

Um....no, I never said anything about effects, I'm not stupid.

Besides being a trend setter, it had the factor of turning the last girl trope on its head. Typically its a man who acts as the hero, and he's your A typical space marine. Ripley at first isn't penned as the star, she's just another member of the crew, and if you know that things are going to go bad you should fully expect her to die horribly soon on. Instead she winds up surviving and subverting the notion that well, that's a man's role ...youknow not dying horribly. Of course originally (IIRC) Ripley was supposed to be a guy, but having the role be acted by a woman certainly set the film aside.

The visuals certainly hold up too, as does the atmosphere. You've seen Star War's space ship sets, well here's a film entirely set on one. Hey let's fling you from that nice not quite white, and well a bit dingy set into some alien architecture and turn this film from being about the day to day lives of the crew to ...the day to day lives of the crew, but with everyone being hunted down (which if it hadn't we'd have Dark Star...). Sure the premise has come up since, but that film put a lot more effort in, and as they were breaking ground to an extent what they did doesn't feel nearly as cliche (it helps that its a genuinely good film, and not just phoned in). Oh, but yes, on the subject of the shift in visuals, the alien itself was a massive draw. Now that's a great design, come on. Sure its been overdone with all the sequels and the need to add variants, but the original is certainly striking.

That film's all about the atmosphere. Put down it for being too slow, but that allows it to build over time till we're at the point where Ripley's toting a flamethrower through the corridors and finally hunting the alien instead of being hunted. The start of the film builds the world and characters, after that you're in a state of confusion about what the hell's going on, and then suspense as people start to fall. When everyone else is dead though Ripley goes from being that "you're gonna die girl!" character to becoming an action hero, and at that point you're invested enough with her that the later half's a rather "hell yeah!" sequence.

The second movie's for the action tropers, however its rather the original movie in reverse in terms of developing from horror to action. See I liked that as it starts out with the typical world building, then we meet the marines and everyone thinks its going to be all about just murdering everything. ...Till most of them die, and then the remaining ones have some character development. They're a bunch of blowhards who fall apart when faced by the unknown. Ripley was a nobody, but she pulled herself up through her experiences. The marines think they know everything, but the results of that first encounter tell the viewer a lot about that.

But yes, besides being a worthy watch because of its genre setting credentials, it does actually hold up as a decent film. Heh, now go acquaint yourself Dark Star.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Of course originally (IIRC) Ripley was supposed to be a guy, but having the role be acted by a woman certainly set the film aside.

Originally the script did not call for any character to be male or female. Notice that throughout the film the characters tend to use their last names. That's literally how the script was written. Last names only. The sex of the characters wasn't really set till they finally did the casting.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I wasnt scared for much of Alien though.

You aren't thinking enough.

The Xenomorph is rape incarnate. Everything about its nature is sexual, it was designed to be sexual, the way it reproduces is sexually violent (a spider latches onto your face and pumps your throat with a proboscis that drops an egg into your stomach that latches onto your aorta and feeds upon it), hell even the way it kills people is sexually violent. You know how it killed Lambert right?

While ALIENS is a good movie, it's good for another reason as it breaks down the stereotypical action movie with the feth YEAH MUHRINES BRO-SKI characters charging in like it's any other action movie, then getting brutally murdered because of it.

Also, the original cut of ALIEN was going to be a lot more horrifying, unfortunately those elements removed. Originally the Xenomorph was fully implied to be sentient/sapient and a complete sadist that brutally murdered humans because it found it fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stanman wrote:
Its a generational thing. Young hipsters that are too cool for life aren't impressed by anything that's not completely CGI and they just won't get the point. Good money says you likely shrugged meh while watching Jaws.

Those movies are about the tension and getting into the viewers primordial headspace, which most current day films fail at horribly as they are focused on the dazzle and special effects.

The first time you see the chestburster it's borderline wee inducing, once you've seen it it's no longer nearly as terrifying. Watching the sequels first ruins the majesty of the original film as it waters down all the suspense elements of the unknown.

While I agree with the sentiment, ALIEN, and virtually all horror movies, are not horrifying. I saw the chestbuster scene when I was in my early teens and it was just meh.

If you want actually horrifying material, that's real war footage. Movies are entirely fictional, and thus there's no investment. Nothing is scary because it's all fake and can never hurt you.

I'm just wondering when younger audiences watch these older films are they sitting down and watching them and not using phones/tablets/laptops at the same time.

That'd be a mighty distraction in my book.

Perhaps "young people these days" have grown up with instant gratification from VOD and consequently have not learned the patience to sit through a film or play that takes a couple of hours to build its plot. I don't mean this as a pejorative, simply a possible result of the way modern culture is produced and consumed.

35 years ago, if you wanted to watch a TV drama series, you had to sit down at 9 p.m. every Wednesday night to watch each episode as it was broadcast. There was no +1 channel, no catch-up TV and probably not even a VHS release until a couple of years after first broadcast. The virtue of patience was forced upon the viewer.

However, to go back to the topic, here is part of what Roger Ebert said about Alien.

Roger Ebert wrote:One of the great strengths of "Alien" is its pacing. It takes its time. It waits. It allows silences (the majestic opening shots are underscored by Jerry Goldsmith with scarcely audible, far-off metallic chatterings). It suggests the enormity of the crew's discovery by building up to it with small steps: The interception of a signal (is it a warning or an SOS?). The descent to the extraterrestrial surface. The bitching by Brett and Parker, who are concerned only about collecting their shares. The masterstroke of the surface murk through which the crew members move, their helmet lights hardly penetrating the soup. The shadowy outline of the alien ship. The sight of the alien pilot, frozen in his command chair. The enormity of the discovery inside the ship ("It's full of ... leathery eggs ...").

A recent version of this story would have hurtled toward the part where the alien jumps on the crew members. Today's slasher movies, in the sci-fi genre and elsewhere, are all pay-off and no buildup. Consider the wretched remake of the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," which cheats its audience out of an explanation, an introduction of the chain-saw family, and even a proper ending. It isn't the slashing that we enjoy. It's the waiting for the slashing.

Hitchcock knew this, with his famous example of a bomb under a table. (It goes off -- that's action. It doesn't go off -- that's suspense.)

Full review here...

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/alien-2009

 Wyzilla wrote:

You aren't thinking enough.

The Xenomorph is rape incarnate.

Maybe for some people there's no fear of being penetrated by large black penis headed creatures?



btw the facehugger, isn't just a spider legged face rape, is a spider legged vagina that swallows your face before injecting it's face rape bits so it covers disturbing imagery for both sexes.

 Wyzilla wrote:
While I agree with the sentiment, ALIEN, and virtually all horror movies, are not horrifying. I saw the chestbuster scene when I was in my early teens and it was just meh.

If you want actually horrifying material, that's real war footage. Movies are entirely fictional, and thus there's no investment. Nothing is scary because it's all fake and can never hurt you.

This is entirely subjective. Different people get the heebie jeebies from different things.

Sci fi and fantasy horror really gets to me. That whole 'fear of the unknown' thing. When I first saw The Thing is absolutely terrified me, and I was in my late teens. When I saw Alien for the first time I was 15, and I was jumping at shadows all night. Those movies still make me uneasy, despite having seen them many, many times.

I can watch a slasher flick like Friday the 13th, Halloween or Scream and enjoy it, because the bad guy is a guy in a mask who is going to get his comeuppance eventually. There's nothing really unknown. By their nature they tend to telegraph their scares a long way off as well. Similarly, I can watch war movies and not feel a thing. I like watching the action, but I'm not really feeling horrified by the actions of other humans. The closest I came to feeling bad was during the episode of Band of Brothers when they find the concentration camp, and that was because it hit home due to my grandfather being kept in one during the war. Real war footage doesn't do much to me either, probably because I've been desentitised by military shooters over the years.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
While I agree with the sentiment, ALIEN, and virtually all horror movies, are not horrifying. I saw the chestbuster scene when I was in my early teens and it was just meh.

If you want actually horrifying material, that's real war footage. Movies are entirely fictional, and thus there's no investment. Nothing is scary because it's all fake and can never hurt you.

This is entirely subjective. Different people get the heebie jeebies from different things.

Sci fi and fantasy horror really gets to me. That whole 'fear of the unknown' thing. When I first saw The Thing is absolutely terrified me, and I was in my late teens. When I saw Alien for the first time I was 15, and I was jumping at shadows all night. Those movies still make me uneasy, despite having seen them many, many times.

I can watch a slasher flick like Friday the 13th, Halloween or Scream and enjoy it, because the bad guy is a guy in a mask. There's nothing really unknown. By their nature they tend to telegraph their scares a long way off as well. Similarly, I can watch war movies and not feel a thing. I like watching the action, but I'm not really feeling horrified by the actions of other humans. The closest I came to feeling bad was during the episode of Band of Brothers when they find the concentration camp, and that was because it hit home due to my grandfather being kept in one during the war. Real war footage doesn't do much to me either, probably because I've been desentitised by military shooters over the years.

But virtually nothing in any horror movie is physically possible unless it's just a generic real life serial killer like the Zodiac Killer. The Xenomorph, Thing, etc however all are physically impossible, and thus there is no reason to fear what cannon exist on Earth.

But I think that's exactly the point of Alien, The Thing and even Predator is that it isn't earth bound life that we know the rules to. Because they are completely extra terrestrial life forms they are not limited by what we assume to know, and are not bound by earth born evolutions that we understand. One can say that it's impossible with earth creatures, but with a truly alien life form all bets are off.

 stanman wrote:
But I think that's exactly the point of Alien, The Thing and even Predator is that it isn't earth bound life that we know the rules to. Because they are completely extra terrestrial life forms they are not limited by what we assume to know, and are bound by earth born evolutions that we understand.

It doesn't matter if they aren't bound by Earth's evolution, physics still apply to them. The Thing would combust in real life given the temperatures generated by its cellular regeneration and mutation. The Xenomorph meanwhile would die of a hyperactive metabolism and a lack of food to give it the compounds to molt constantly.

In short, it's fiction for a reason. It doesn't matter if it's alien life, radiation, genetic engineering, etc. It can't function. And there is no point being frightened of something that both does not exist and cannot exist.

Yet you have suspense movies that are borderline horror movies based off of real creatures, Jaws or Ghost in the Darkness. Granted Jaws is fictional supersized but even standard sized sharks can kill you dead without much effort, same with lions. Granted I've never been to Africa so I tend not to worry about killer lions, crocs or tigers, but even in fresh water where I know for certain there wouldn't be a shark there's a primal part of my brain that twinges thinking "shark!" at times. In the ocean it's a hundred fold.


Fear isn't something that resides in the logical part of the brain that understands rules and rationality, fear is buried deep in the primal and emotional parts of our brain and the things that set it off don't need to play on logic to make us frightened. Just because something is not real or impossible doesn't mean that elements of it's design doesn't trigger a reaction with deep underlying emotional response. Insects generally aren't something to be feared but there's tons of people with deep phobias about them as it's not a logic based response. Hitchcock often referenced that tricking the brains emotional response to fill in the unknown was far more effective at prompting a reaction than showing the act itself.

 Wyzilla wrote:
And there is no point being frightened of something that both does not exist and cannot exist.

Welcome to Earth, enjoy your stay!

 stanman wrote:
Yet you have suspense movies that are borderline horror movies based off of real creatures, Jaws or Ghost in the Darkness. Granted Jaws is fictional supersized but even standard sized sharks can kill you dead without much effort, same with lions. Granted I've never been to Africa so I tend not to worry about killer lions, crocs or tigers, but even in fresh water where I know for certain there wouldn't be a shark there's a primal part of my brain that twinges thinking "shark!" at times. In the ocean it's a hundred fold.

And you are more likely to die to cattle or a coconut falling on your head then dying to a shark attack (Seriously! Shark attacks are downright mundane statistically). Again, horror movies are fictional, sensationalized events that present a boogeyman that is either incapable of existing, or so highly unlikely to ever meet it's not worth wasting the brain cells to mull over the odds.

While as an irrational child/teenager horror movies could sometimes spook me, as an adult I simply am able to recognize the barrier between fiction and reality. And by rational deduction there simply is no point to even feel fear over something that can't hurt you.

What a bundle of joy...

Both we're awesome and completely different in their own right

If your anadult it's probably not going to scare you anyway

 mitch_rifle wrote:
Both we're awesome and completely different in their own right

If your anadult it's probably not going to scare you anyway

The hunt continues however. I constantly try to find a horror movie that scares me so bad that I can't sleep at night, but it hasn't happened in over six years.

 Wyzilla wrote:
I constantly try to find a horror movie that scares me so bad that I can't sleep at night, but it hasn't happened in over six years.

If you want a terrifying experience watch anything by Micheal Bay, then realize he's still getting paid to make movies.

I haven't been able to sleep right since Transformers 4.

 paulson games wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I constantly try to find a horror movie that scares me so bad that I can't sleep at night, but it hasn't happened in over six years.

If you want a terrifying experience watch anything by Micheal Bay, then realize he's still getting paid to make movies.

I haven't been able to sleep right since Transformers 4.

If I wanted that kind of terror, I'd just watch a Sarah Palin interview and remind myself this woman could have ended up as President.

 paulson games wrote:
If you want a terrifying experience watch anything by Micheal Bay, then realize he's still getting paid to make movies.

I haven't been able to sleep right since Transformers 4.

Well, he sure likes that money!
(Certainly one of the best ERB, but I am very biased )

I agree with pretty much what has been said extolling the praises of Alien. I think what is missed by the present generation is that watching that movie for the first time in 1979 on the big screen, compared to 2015 on the television, just doesn't capture the same level of scary. I think the only way you could come close to it, is to have a 60" TV, watch it at night, with the lights off. Even so, with all the other things we have seen since 1979, I believe it wouldn't have the same impact to someone who watched it for the first time in 2015, just due to the techno savy generation we are now in 2015 vs 1979. I mean seriously, in 1979 most of the country still only had 3 channel TV, and no cable TV, and this was before VHS..no where near DVD.

I also love Aliens but for a different reason.

I could watch both of them and never get tired of them.

GG

Everyone else has said pretty much what I have to say about Alien. It is my favorite movie for exactly the reasons presented here.

I think the modern era has desensitized younger folks to the extent that they are numb to what made Alien so disturbing at the time.

After having played the new video game, Alien:Isolation, I found myself experiencing the same terror as I felt when I initially saw the movie. Perhaps younger folks can try the game and you'll have some sort of idea of what the movie did for the rest of us.

The problem with movies today is the same as with most things. Power creep. As the envelope keeps getting pushed further and further, what was terrifying in the day now pales by comparison.

I wonder if it went to get rated today if it would still be a R movie, or be downgraded to NC-17 or even PG-13.

One thing I particularly liked about Alien (and Aliens) is how filthy and run-down the setting looks. Same as the original Star Wars trilogy. There's missing paint, bare-scratched metal and machines that actually look like they've seen heavy use. Real people could exist there, working their butts off and too tired to go slap fresh paint on something that works. It's easier to imagine yourself there, watching the movie in your own home where a few things could also use a touch-up when you have time and energy.

Newer movies with shining white computer-generated buildings and ships just don't seem as realistic somehow.

I concur with the general consensus that Alien totally holds up, but because of it's status as a game changer and genre setter might feel a bit... passe I suppose, for people familiar with it's runty children that have been cribbing from it's notebook.

Alien set a standard for space horror and horror in general, but won't get much of a jump from people today. The Citizen Kane reference is a good one.

I think Aliens ages better because of the world building. You know there is an entire civilization and community outside of what Ripley experiences, and it feels very real and lived in (Spetulhu touched on this).

I think it also has to do with the fact you have the bravado and military style of a Vietnam-era movie, without the moral quandaries of invading a foreign nation or forced conscription.

The other issue you might be having it "Knew" what the Ailen looked like before you ever saw the movie. So there was no "Shock Value" to it.
It is also not a Space Move, it was a Horror Movie set in space.

I saw it when it first came out and it was scarey the same way Halloween/Friday the 13th did.

Alien was a lot more tense than Aliens. Aliens felt more like thriller and action, while Alien really built up the story and atmosphere. Personally, I like Aliens better than Alien, but I still love Alien for what it was and how it set up the sequel.

It's the same feeling I have about Terminator and T2. I love T2 more than T1 due to the better action and pacing, but I still really enjoy T1 for the same reasons I enjoy Alien.

Frankly though, if you didn't like Alien, no one can really tell you why you should like it.

Edit: Also in the same vein, a lot of people don't understand why the original Halloween was so scary. I think the film is still remarkable and has aged pretty well, but my wife's sister (who was 13 at the time) watched it with a friend at 4 in the afternoon, with all the lights on, and said it wasn't scary.

This was also the same child who saw Zombieland at 12, so past scares had no impact on her.

As has been said before, films like House of a Thousand Corpses and such really pushed the envelope on what makes a film scary or gorey, but by extent have ruined a lot of classic films. I made my wife watch the very first Night of the Living Dead with me and I realized that while I found the film terrifying at 14 years old, it was almost laughable when I watched it a couple months ago.

I feel like horror is one of the truly hard genres to make a film in, because in romantic films or drama or comedy you can always go for the cheap way out to make people feel something with your movie. Conversely, in horror if you just slap some gore and scares in there, the film comes out feeling cheap.

One of my favorite examples of this is John Carpenter's The Thing. While there were a lot of gross and gorey parts of the movie, what made it terrifying is the way the gorey was used to create an unsettling yet still real feel to the movie. When the scene with the doctor happened, you didn't laugh at the special effects, it genuinely disturbed you because of the unsettling nature of it.

TL,DR: Kids these days don't know what true horror is


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
One thing I particularly liked about Alien (and Aliens) is how filthy and run-down the setting looks. Same as the original Star Wars trilogy. There's missing paint, bare-scratched metal and machines that actually look like they've seen heavy use. Real people could exist there, working their butts off and too tired to go slap fresh paint on something that works. It's easier to imagine yourself there, watching the movie in your own home where a few things could also use a touch-up when you have time and energy.

Newer movies with shining white computer-generated buildings and ships just don't seem as realistic somehow.

This. A lot of movies forget how simple things like dirt and grime can really create a real life setting. Unless you're in a microchip factory, the ceilings and walls won't be spotless.

Alien was also one of the first flims to de-glamourise space travel. Most science fiction films beforehand made space seem exciting and spaceships clean and awe inspiring.

In Alien transpoting cargo through space seemed like another dirty and grimey job. Sort of like being in a future version of the merchant navy.

I can't agree that Star Wars seemed dirty, it was less glamorous than 2001 or Star Trek but it wasn't anywhere near as gritty as Alien. There where no sweat patches, stubble, dirty clothes, steam coming out of pipes and no smoking. The fact that loads of the crew of the crew of the Nostromo smoked really added to the atmosphere of Alien. It felt like a proper working ship.

I love 'Alien'. Still do, but I also enjoy the rest of the series. Even the much maligned 'Alien 3', which was a great movie. Even if it was a bit of a rehash of the first. Mind you, with all the British crew involved I'm probably a little biased!

As for the 'Is it a horror film or a thriller' debate, I'm more inclined to lean towards the Thriller camp. It's the same as the first 'Saw' movie, which I think is a masterful Thriller. The rest are truly terrible, but the first really stands out and is easily one of my favorite films of the past 20 years.

The power of Alien is not only the beautiful sets, amazing acting or visceral and disturbing horror, it's in the revelation of the beast it's self. All the other horror movies of it's time, and really since and before, once you finally get the revelation of the monster, well, they're a let down, even if they do look 'cool' like say the Predator, they don't terrify. When we finally saw the alien emerge from the dark, uncurling from the chains to lower it's self like a mantis, damn that thing wasn't some guy in a bad rubber mask, it was grade A terror.

The Xenomorph broke that mold, it totally departed from the 'bug eyed monster', it looked utterly unlike anything else, it's entire structure, it's movements, it's methods. Nothing else has the visual impact that thing does. It's totally eldritch, beautiful and actually looks like something that could exist. It preys on our fears, it has no eyes, no clue to an intellect or intention.

OP, you said you were entirely aware of the franchise, of the monster, of the whole modus operandi of the xenomorphs and the backstory, that's why you were not impressed. Audiences who went to see this movie had no idea, no clue what they were going to get. It blew minds and still stands as a landmark of a movie.

Alien is in my opinion a far better film.

it hasd the lived in future look which was new at the time but commonplace now. The iconography from Aliens if from Alien, just added soldiers.

As most people see the films in reverse order I can see how the orginal film is overlooked, itd also paced for its time.

Aged? Not in the slightest, it doesn't look in the least it bit 1970's it looks like a plausible future.
The pacing howeever is different, and in many ways better, its from a genre of films dedicated for an audience with an attention span, i.e not the modern audience.
If anyithing its 'aging' is a sign of a regression. Too slow? actually well paced. Too boring, not action of fast forward.

As for its horror/tension, as with all horror its only really effective once, and with alien the xenomorph is only properly seen in the closing shots of the film. This is a standard and successful horror technique. However we all know the xenomorph from aliens, AvP and the associated game franchises, and genestealers. So the mystery is gone.

It will be there for a first time viewer though, new to the franchise, whether in 1979 or now.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The power of Alien is not only the beautiful sets, amazing acting or visceral and disturbing horror, it's in the revelation of the beast it's self. All the other horror movies of it's time, and really since and before, once you finally get the revelation of the monster, well, they're a let down, even if they do look 'cool' like say the Predator, they don't terrify. When we finally saw the alien emerge from the dark, uncurling from the chains to lower it's self like a mantis, damn that thing wasn't some guy in a bad rubber mask, it was grade A terror.

The Xenomorph broke that mold, it totally departed from the 'bug eyed monster', it looked utterly unlike anything else, it's entire structure, it's movements, it's methods. Nothing else has the visual impact that thing does. It's totally eldritch, beautiful and actually looks like something that could exist. It preys on our fears, it has no eyes, no clue to an intellect or intention.

OP, you said you were entirely aware of the franchise, of the monster, of the whole modus operandi of the xenomorphs and the backstory, that's why you were not impressed. Audiences who went to see this movie had no idea, no clue what they were going to get. It blew minds and still stands as a landmark of a movie.

That and the actors had no clue what it looked like. There were not shown "Irving" until they had their screen with it.
Even John Hurt knew what was going on during the Chest Buster scene was not quite sure what was going on. The rest of the cast though they were doing a fluff luch scene that was probably going to end up on the cutting room floor.

I've read the story the the rest of the cast had no idea what was going on during the chest burster scene, but I don't buy that.

There would have to be hydroloics and lots of tubes of blood ready to go to film the scene all and it would all have to be strapped to John Hurts chest.

Perhaps the didn't know the exact nature of what was going to happen but there is no way they had no idea that something pivotal and violent was about to happen to Hurt.

Also, one interesting fact that people may not know, but the slime dripping from the Xenomorph was K-Y Jelly. The "poor" dude in the costume got rubbed up and down in the stuff by the female costume manager.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 paulson games wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I constantly try to find a horror movie that scares me so bad that I can't sleep at night, but it hasn't happened in over six years.

If you want a terrifying experience watch anything by Micheal Bay, then realize he's still getting paid to make movies.

I haven't been able to sleep right since Transformers 4.

If I wanted that kind of terror, I'd just watch a Sarah Palin interview and remind myself this woman could have ended up as President.

Or watch a George W. Bush interview and remind yourself this man could have ended up president!

(Too soon?)

 LuciusAR wrote:
I've read the story the the rest of the cast had no idea what was going on during the chest burster scene, but I don't buy that.

Its not true. What happened was that Veronica Cartwright freaked out and went into shock because the amount of blood they were being sprayed with was underplayed deliberately. The actors knew the script and it had to be filmed over several takes, but the main chest burst scene was shot once, with offal from an abattoir packed into the cavity with high pressure air hoses. When the clapperboard went the actors got sprayed with pig guts and their reactions filmed.
I can see how the myth developed from that, its partly true.
The whole troupe was pro enough not to break character even when freaking out, shows the quality they had to work with.

 LuciusAR wrote:

Perhaps the didn't know the exact nature of what was going to happen but there is no way they had no idea that something pivotal and violent was about to happen to Hurt.

John hurt first collapsed onto the table, then was replaced by a full body prosthetic from the shoulders down. The chestburster puppet failed to break the T shirt several times so that scene was reshot, however Ridley Scott liked the blood seeping through the tee shirt so left the first take and then reshot the punch through later and spliced the two scenes together. It worked well. The chestburster scene was separate to the blood spray scene which was where the surprise happened.

Is this a troll thread?

It feel like a troll thread.

Or maybe a "Swoop 'n' Poop"?

 Alpharius wrote:
Or maybe a "Swoop 'n' Poop"?

...and the question remains: how did Alistair get his hair to look like that millenia before the invention of hair gel?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
...and the question remains: how did Alistair get his hair to look like that millenia before the invention of hair gel?

 Sigvatr wrote:
...and the question remains: how did Alistair get his hair to look like that millenia before the invention of hair gel?

I'm afraid that quest line was cut from the game because Bioware is adverse to fun and lightheartedness. There is only darkness.

 Alpharius wrote:
Is this a troll thread?

It feel like a troll thread.

Or maybe a "Swoop 'n' Poop"?

It's a HSM thread.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
...and the question remains: how did Alistair get his hair to look like that millenia before the invention of hair gel?

I'm afraid that quest line was cut from the game because Bioware is adverse to fun and lightheartedness. There is only darkness.

And Oghren. Nothing is funnier than constant burping. Eh? Eh? Eh?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Is this a troll thread?

It feel like a troll thread.

Or maybe a "Swoop 'n' Poop"?

It's a HSM thread.

Im not trolling, When I watched it, it seemed like a good movie, but not ground breaking like I see it always was.
I guess the answer is, Im young and grew up knowing about the xenomorphs. And that it created so many things thatt Im used to, that I dont really think of them as new.
I mean, I like old horror sometimes.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Is this a troll thread?

It feel like a troll thread.

Or maybe a "Swoop 'n' Poop"?

It's a HSM thread.

Im not trolling, When I watched it, it seemed like a good movie, but not ground breaking like I see it always was.
I guess the answer is, Im young and grew up knowing about the xenomorphs. And that it created so many things thatt Im used to, that I dont really think of them as new.
I mean, I like old horror sometimes.

Something can be 'groundbreaking', but only when it comes along. I think if you weren't around at that time, didn't get the 'feel' of what kind of movies were made and how that then changed afterwards, then you aren't qualified to make that judgement.

But, I'm in the same boat. Alien was released before I was born and I didn't see it until probably early 90's, when I managed to watch a copy on VHS with a mate (as everyone from my generation used to watch 'video nasties') same too really with Aliens. Both scared me a great deal, but the first and second films are very different types of movie, the first being a suspense/horror (with a fair amount of its efficacy due to it being revolting!) and the second being an action/horror. James Cameron said himself that they couldn't match the suspense of the first film and do the first film any better, so he tried to do something different with the material (something that David Finch didn't apparently realise for the third film). Despite them both being films of the same franchise, I don't think it's really fair to compare them.

I do think though that Alien has aged a lot better than a lot of films released around that time, and even those that have come afterwards. Very clever camera work, sparing shots of the alien (your imagination is building it for practically all of the film until the final scene), it is a lot slower paced than a lot of modern stuff - but, hey that's the problem with everything, life and forms of entertainment move a lot faster these days than they did 30 years ago.

I agree dude, about 4 months or something ago I watched the series because, well at 20 I had yet to watch it.

First one was ok, I mean, not bad but not amazing. I have never liked horror or anything simply because the genre in my opinion is pathetic and bland. Usually more humorous than anything. But the first Alien movie wasnt bad, just good.

The second one was pretty cool. I think its one of the better ones. It still annoys me how aliens can magically breed like rabbits with seemingly little food about, but it was pretty cool.

Then the rest of the series is straight up down hill from there. Like waaay down hill.

 Swastakowey wrote:
It still annoys me how aliens can magically breed like rabbits with seemingly little food about

IIRC they get all/most of their nutritional requirements in the chestburster phase, or immediately afterward. They are very efficient biological weapons. Perfect organism...

 Alex C wrote:
Perfect organism...

Leeloo?

 Breotan wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Perfect organism...

Leeloo?

Multipass!

Leeloo DALLAS Multipass!

 Alex C wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Perfect organism...

Leeloo?

Multipass!

Yeah, multipass. She knows it's a multipass!

 Alex C wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
It still annoys me how aliens can magically breed like rabbits with seemingly little food about

IIRC they get all/most of their nutritional requirements in the chestburster phase, or immediately afterward. They are very efficient biological weapons. Perfect organism...

The ability to ignore the laws of thermodynamics would make an organism pretty perfect...

 DarkLink wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
It still annoys me how aliens can magically breed like rabbits with seemingly little food about

IIRC they get all/most of their nutritional requirements in the chestburster phase, or immediately afterward. They are very efficient biological weapons. Perfect organism...

The ability to ignore the laws of thermodynamics would make an organism pretty perfect...

I think there is more to it than that.

Thermodynamics as far as I know is about heat and energy, but there is also the fact, a really basic fact that you can create more from nothing. Yes you can make it go further by using less of it, or using it more efficiently, but to grow bigger than a human, breed and continue living they would need to eat a lot more than just a tiny amount at birth.

If they could do that, then no wonder they are so badly wanted. Imagine the money to be made from that!

 DarkLink wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
It still annoys me how aliens can magically breed like rabbits with seemingly little food about

IIRC they get all/most of their nutritional requirements in the chestburster phase, or immediately afterward. They are very efficient biological weapons. Perfect organism...

The ability to ignore the laws of thermodynamics would make an organism pretty perfect...

Hey I never claimed it made sense, I just seem to remember something to that effect from the "making of" stuff. I could be wrong.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Um....no, I never said anything about effects, I'm not stupid.

I think it's just that we expect so much more now. When it come out it was revolutionary, there also wasn't as much violence on the screen. It's like looking at bar fights from old westerns, they look silly, more funny than anything else. Now it's gone the other way and everyone has to be doing somersaults and swinging off the lights and explosions. I just watched some chinese movie set in the 16th? century and the cannons were firing burning balls that exploded into fireworks - the Guillotines it was called. I guess they felt that regular cannon balls that just punched holes in things would be too boring for modern viewers.

Of course Star Wars was made two years earlier than Alien and is a much better movie though it was digitally remastered.

Another one is The Thing (1982). Everyone kept telling me the original was the best, scariest etc so I watched it last year - it was meh, I guess the fans of it saw it way back and just remember how it made them feel when they watched it then.

As for Aliens, the 2nd and 4th films are the best and I wonder if Space Hulk was based on Aliens? Marine kill teams going up against insectoid monsters that harvest humans to make more of themselves. So similar.

The 4th Alien movie never happened. You can't convince me otherwise.

The Thing happened, and it is glorious

Why do people dislike Alien: Resurrection so much? It's not my favorite of the Alien films, but I thought it was watchable.

It was better than the 3rd one.

Computron wrote:

Of course Star Wars was made two years earlier than Alien and is a much better movie though it was digitally remastered.

Whaaaaaat? I love Star Wars...but man....I'm not sure you can convince me it's better than Alien...

Okay, I didn't like the baby thing, but the rest of it was classic.
The Thing prequel is much better than the original.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

Computron wrote:

Of course Star Wars was made two years earlier than Alien and is a much better movie though it was digitally remastered.

Whaaaaaat? I love Star Wars...but man....I'm not sure you can convince me it's better than Alien...

I love space opera better than rattling around in a building and I think it holds up better.

 Hordini wrote:
Why do people dislike Alien: Resurrection so much? It's not my favorite of the Alien films, but I thought it was watchable.

I just found it uninteresting. Characters were bland, even Ripley, who wasn't really Ripley. Queen with nonsensical genitals. The "newborn" hybrid, when technically any of the Aliens except the one in Alien 3 are human/xeno hybrids. Just seemed goofy compared to the horror of what came before it.

I liked Alien 3 better, at least it retained some horror and grimdark.

I rank the movies from best to worst in the same order they released.

Computron wrote:
Okay, I didn't like the baby thing, but the rest of it was classic.
The Thing prequel is much better than the original.

No, bad Computron.


The 2011 Thing is quite the remake prequel. Plus the CGI is a little bit iffy. At least the physical effects in the 1982 version make it look somewhat real.

 Alex C wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
It still annoys me how aliens can magically breed like rabbits with seemingly little food about

IIRC they get all/most of their nutritional requirements in the chestburster phase, or immediately afterward. They are very efficient biological weapons. Perfect organism...

Perfect organism does not allow it exponentially increase is body mass over the course of hours. The cellular growth would generate too much heat, not to mention the metabolism required for such insane growth would probably kill it in very short order. It doesn't work. There's not a shred of logic to support an organism of its size acting or growing like it does in the movie. Not to mention the facehugger is both pointless and a complete waste of matter and energy.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
While I agree with the sentiment, ALIEN, and virtually all horror movies, are not horrifying. I saw the chestbuster scene when I was in my early teens and it was just meh.

If you want actually horrifying material, that's real war footage. Movies are entirely fictional, and thus there's no investment. Nothing is scary because it's all fake and can never hurt you.

This is entirely subjective. Different people get the heebie jeebies from different things.

Sci fi and fantasy horror really gets to me. That whole 'fear of the unknown' thing. When I first saw The Thing is absolutely terrified me, and I was in my late teens. When I saw Alien for the first time I was 15, and I was jumping at shadows all night. Those movies still make me uneasy, despite having seen them many, many times.

I can watch a slasher flick like Friday the 13th, Halloween or Scream and enjoy it, because the bad guy is a guy in a mask. There's nothing really unknown. By their nature they tend to telegraph their scares a long way off as well. Similarly, I can watch war movies and not feel a thing. I like watching the action, but I'm not really feeling horrified by the actions of other humans. The closest I came to feeling bad was during the episode of Band of Brothers when they find the concentration camp, and that was because it hit home due to my grandfather being kept in one during the war. Real war footage doesn't do much to me either, probably because I've been desentitised by military shooters over the years.

But virtually nothing in any horror movie is physically possible unless it's just a generic real life serial killer like the Zodiac Killer. The Xenomorph, Thing, etc however all are physically impossible, and thus there is no reason to fear what cannon exist on Earth.

And that's fine for you. Again - fear is a deeply personal thing. Hence why some are terrified of spiders and some don't give a toss.

For me, Alien was terrifying, and still makes me uneasy. I'd guess it's the same for many others or it wouldn't be so well regarded as a horror movie.

If you're not bothered by it, well, it's not for you. But there's no need to belittle others for being afraid of monsters. Some people just are.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
It still annoys me how aliens can magically breed like rabbits with seemingly little food about

IIRC they get all/most of their nutritional requirements in the chestburster phase, or immediately afterward. They are very efficient biological weapons. Perfect organism...

Perfect organism does not allow it exponentially increase is body mass over the course of hours. The cellular growth would generate too much heat, not to mention the metabolism required for such insane growth would probably kill it in very short order. It doesn't work. There's not a shred of logic to support an organism of its size acting or growing like it does in the movie. Not to mention the facehugger is both pointless and a complete waste of matter and energy.

Again, I never said it made sense, and I could be remembering incorrectly. However, it doesn't need to make sense, it just needs to be horrifying.

The Alien is a biomechanical weapon. Perhaps our understanding of growth processes do not apply. Maybe it has some sort of internal "battery" that kicks in at birth to provide the growth needed. Perhaps they draw energy from the atmosphere in some way, hence why they prefer to hang around it the hotter parts of the ship/colony. Ash does mention how surprised he is to see it adapt to their environment "considering it's nutritional requirements", though he doesn't mention what those requirements are.

In the end it really doesn't matter, and not understanding the Alien has always been part of why it's so disturbing.

 Alex C wrote:
Everyone else has said pretty much what I have to say about Alien. It is my favorite movie for exactly the reasons presented here.

I think the modern era has desensitized younger folks to the extent that they are numb to what made Alien so disturbing at the time.

After having played the new video game, Alien:Isolation, I found myself experiencing the same terror as I felt when I initially saw the movie. Perhaps younger folks can try the game and you'll have some sort of idea of what the movie did for the rest of us.

I felt genuinely terrified watching the first movie, but the second and third were more Action films, while Alien: Resurrection was more a 9 year old's creation, the Alien equivalent to the Star Wars prequels. Alien vs Predator video game was not that terrifying either, more fun than anything. But Isolation gave me the same thrills and fear as in the early game. Like the film, it explains nothing and chucks you in, not even letting you know you won't even see the creature for an hour or two. And when the beast first appears...

Just imagine this with Oculus Rift and headphones, as any survival horror should be played. Skip to 1:30 :

The 3rd movie wasn’t a bad movie, on it’s own. It was a horrible sequel the the second movie though. It does harken back to the first movie in tine though, with more suspense/horror, rather then action/horror.

The 4th was OK. I’m not a fan of some of the hybrid/queen themes, but the movie held together ok, there was some cool character interaction/lines, but it’s worth watching.

The biggest problems with both 3 and 4 is a bad case of sequel-itis. They are part of the franchise, but don’t really bring anything new to it. Just another visit to the world. Which is cool and all, but nothing really shines about them.

 LordofHats wrote:
It was better than the 3rd one.

Woah. Woah. Woah.

No. Stop that right now.

Yeah, sorry but personally I advocate "Alien World" as the place we should send all our rapists and murderers. I don't give a gak what happens to them. Not even if they go born again and become sexist pigs (who try to rape Ripley).

 LordofHats wrote:
Yeah, sorry but personally I advocate "Alien World" as the place we should send all our rapists and murderers. I don't give a gak what happens to them. Not even if they go born again and become sexist pigs (who try to rape Ripley).

I'm still waiting on the sequel to the AVP game (2010) that has as its end-game. Although given what Prometheus brought to the francise, this part of the game it totally irrelevant.

 paulson games wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I constantly try to find a horror movie that scares me so bad that I can't sleep at night, but it hasn't happened in over six years.

If you want a terrifying experience watch anything by Micheal Bay, then realize he's still getting paid to make movies.

I haven't been able to sleep right since Transformers 4.

Transformers 4 was so slow it makes Alien look like a high octane action flick. Bay is probably the only director who can make explosions and action sequences look tedious.

 Antario wrote:

 paulson games wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I constantly try to find a horror movie that scares me so bad that I can't sleep at night, but it hasn't happened in over six years.

If you want a terrifying experience watch anything by Micheal Bay, then realize he's still getting paid to make movies.

I haven't been able to sleep right since Transformers 4.

Transformers 4 was so slow it makes Alien look like a high octane action flick. Bay is probably the only director who can make explosions and action sequences look tedious.

Isn't his style with action scenes is that he clutters the screen with so much gak you can't really make out what's going on, I would never describe his movies as slow paced.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Antario wrote:

 paulson games wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
I constantly try to find a horror movie that scares me so bad that I can't sleep at night, but it hasn't happened in over six years.

If you want a terrifying experience watch anything by Micheal Bay, then realize he's still getting paid to make movies.

I haven't been able to sleep right since Transformers 4.

Transformers 4 was so slow it makes Alien look like a high octane action flick. Bay is probably the only director who can make explosions and action sequences look tedious.

Isn't his style with action scenes is that he clutters the screen with so much gak you can't really make out what's going on, I would never describe his movies as slow paced.

Yes, that is correct but transformers 4 is a bit of an exception. The first hour nothing happens at all and that makes for awfully tough viewing in a movie that has no distinguishable plot or any interesting characters. Then there is an hour worth of pointless chase scenes and 30 minutes of wrecking Hong Kong. There is barely enough content to make a 5 minute video clip but it's stretched to 2 and a half hours of boredom.

As I've got older I've enjoyed Alien and Terminator a lot more than their sequels. They're both horror films, Aluen especially so, in which the killer in unstoppable. They've both been diluted since. Aliens is great for action, and I've watched it lots of times. But all the gung-ho guns blazing stuff is just entertainment, it's not horror and it doesn't show the craftsmanship that the original had. Alien followed the style of Dark Star, making the future a dirty working class one rather than pristine and clean. Dark Star did this earlier but Alien mastered and popularised it. Alien is the deserved masterpiece it is described. The design is excellent, the characterisation natural and interesting, and there's some cracking effects, shocks and scares along the way. Aliens is a lot of fun, buts it full of dumb OTT characters that you can't relate to because they're not normal people thrown into a frightening situation. There a many clever moments throughout the film, there are occasions you're likely to miss the alien if you're not observant enough. The mystery set up by the derelict should have been left one of the great unknowns.

Anyone asking why Alien is great should remember that everything was designed for the film, everything afterwards used that creativity in diluted forms with diminishing returns. Eventually it would hit rock bottom with AvP2, the final last step in making them mundane monsters, depicting aliens running around modern day America killing highschoolers. How far the great have fallen.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, I decided to finally watch the movie despite me knowing alot about the alien francise, but never watching anything but 4?
I all honesty. the sequel is better, it its a better horror and action movie. The original felt slow and just boring at times. And I didnt car for any of the chracters.
But 2 made it better and so much more fun to watch. more tense scences, when the alien queen comes out of the elevator, I was scared, Even though I knew the ending, I was scared they where not going to make it. And I feel it does the "Females can be both action heroes and nurturing at the same time" thing so much better, Newt at Ripley where great together.
Alien wasnt a bad film, it just wasnt fun.

It wasn't meant to be "fun." It was a ground breaking horror film.

We should remember, Alien is a horror movie with some action elements. Aliens is an action movie with some horror elements. Different genres, both excellent.

Don't mind that slick spot of the dorrknob to your room. I'm sure its nothing.
To quote the immortal bard: "One Day you will account for your many and varied blasphemies!"

Now we need Aliens vs. Predators v.s Cybernet!
"Hasta La Vista...Buggie..."

 Frazzled wrote:


Now we need Aliens vs. Predators v.s Cybernet!
"Hasta La Vista...Buggie..."

I'm pretty sure Dark Horse made something along those lines XD

Alien was amazing in its hey-day. It may not of aged well. Something strange about that franchise... No two movies were like the other. Completely different productions and feel.

Spetulhu wrote:
One thing I particularly liked about Alien (and Aliens) is how filthy and run-down the setting looks. Same as the original Star Wars trilogy. There's missing paint, bare-scratched metal and machines that actually look like they've seen heavy use. Real people could exist there, working their butts off and too tired to go slap fresh paint on something that works. It's easier to imagine yourself there, watching the movie in your own home where a few things could also use a touch-up when you have time and energy.

Newer movies with shining white computer-generated buildings and ships just don't seem as realistic somehow.

And that stupid plastic bird, dipping in and out of a glass of water....

I loved Alien - but that bird told you an awful lot about the folks on the ship.... They were blue collar working men and women on a years long journey on a space faring oil refinery. Not scientists, not xenobiologists... just folks that encountered a horror beyond the reaches of their knowledge.

And the term that I have heard that sums up the Alien is O'Bannon's 'the roach under the sink' - you almost never get to see the monster.

But then I'm not young, anymore....

The Auld Grump

Also, Alien is awesome because 70's tech future is the best future.

Super-dirty ramshackle space trucks run by computers with ultra-basic/no GUI and a button for every conceivable function = win.

Seeing Alien first time it came out as a kid. It was scarey. Dang scarey.
Seeing Aiens though its "FETH YA YOU GO COLONIAL MARINES!"

 Wyzilla wrote:

 mitch_rifle wrote:
Both we're awesome and completely different in their own right

If your anadult it's probably not going to scare you anyway

The hunt continues however. I constantly try to find a horror movie that scares me so bad that I can't sleep at night, but it hasn't happened in over six years.

Thatt's because you aren't willing to suspend disbelief and let yourself be immersed in the movie universe.

At least, that is what I am interpreting from your previous statements. I maybe way off.

I find movies that is not in the horror genera more scary. I like to be scare but I hate being scare or creep out by a movie that is already finished...that is not an enjoyable feeling to me.

I have a list of (top of my head) of film that I can't watch by my self in the dark. Might be stupid to you lol.
Mulholland drive
Blare witch project
Any of david lynch film after muholland drive

 Alex C wrote:
Also, Alien is awesome because 70's tech future is the best future.

This I have to agree with. There's just something about those 70's monitors and keyboards that are so damn endearing. I like the new Star Trek movies and don't hate them, but I have to say the slick iPod future is so much less cool than the grungy Alien future. Maybe that's also why the movie has aged so well. Everything on the set was so well put together and seemed so real when it lacked all the bloom lighting.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Also, Alien is awesome because 70's tech future is the best future.

This I have to agree with. There's just something about those 70's monitors and keyboards that are so damn endearing. I like the new Star Trek movies and don't hate them, but I have to say the slick iPod future is so much less cool than the grungy Alien future. Maybe that's also why the movie has aged so well. Everything on the set was so well put together and seemed so real when it lacked all the bloom lighting.

And fewer Lens Flares!

With apologies to Mr. Abrams and Mr. Bay.

The Auld Grump

 LordofHats wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Also, Alien is awesome because 70's tech future is the best future.

This I have to agree with. There's just something about those 70's monitors and keyboards that are so damn endearing. I like the new Star Trek movies and don't hate them, but I have to say the slick iPod future is so much less cool than the grungy Alien future. Maybe that's also why the movie has aged so well. Everything on the set was so well put together and seemed so real when it lacked all the bloom lighting.

You have put your finger on something there. Everything looked well put together and real because it was real.

The computer screens were real. The keyboards were actual keyboards with buttons that punched. The Alien was a very tall, thin Masai man in a suit, not CGI.

It wasn't created in Photoshop and After Effects.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Also, Alien is awesome because 70's tech future is the best future.

This I have to agree with. There's just something about those 70's monitors and keyboards that are so damn endearing. I like the new Star Trek movies and don't hate them, but I have to say the slick iPod future is so much less cool than the grungy Alien future. Maybe that's also why the movie has aged so well. Everything on the set was so well put together and seemed so real when it lacked all the bloom lighting.

You have put your finger on something there. Everything looked well put together and real because it was real.

The computer screens were real. The keyboards were actual keyboards with buttons that punched. The Alien was a very tall, thin Masai man in a suit, not CGI.

It wasn't created in Photoshop and After Effects.

I think that's actually why special FX is starting to go back to models, animatronics and puppetry. It's something that is being done for the new Star Wars movies for example.

CGI can be exceptional when used well, sometimes though film makers can be lazy with it, and resort to "we'll just CGI it in later". Part of the reason Alien, and other films like it, were so effective was because the camera work was so cleverly done. Having the alien come out shot in a blur, and letting your imagination build a lot of it, was so much more effective than the full-screen and exposed Aliens in the third and fourth movies.

I've always throught that cgi looks too clean and crisp. You can always tell that it is a little bit off. They haven't quite left uncanny valley yet.

People are anti-CGI because of the appalling showcasing done in the Star Wars prequels, and similar movies, but especially Lucas's abominations. Done well CGI looked real, and has done for a long time. Jurassic Park is a good example of that, the dinos were mostly CGI, no one complains about CGI then and the tech has improved considerably since 1993.

CGI hasn't got crap, it has got lazy.

 Orlanth wrote:
People are anti-CGI because of the appalling showcasing done in the Star Wars prequels, and similar movies, but especially Lucas's abominations. Done well CGI looked real, and has done for a long time. Jurassic Park is a good example of that, the dinos were mostly CGI, no one complains about CGI then and the tech has improved considerably since 1993.

CGI hasn't got crap, it has got lazy.

There's actually a really good reason why the Jurassic Park CGI looks so good, even after all these years... There was a documentary/extra that I watched on special effects, and they had one of the "greatest" puppet makers in Hollywood on... He was hired on to create animatronic dinos for JP, and when the scope of the film got larger and larger, they "ditched" the puppet dinos for CGI. They ended up approaching him, and said, "hey, sorry bout all the work you did on the puppets you made that we're not going to use, but since you know how to make things look real and organic, you mind becoming the head of the CG department, and oversee the animators to make sure they get it right? For a "small" raise of course"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
For a "small" raise of course"

They certainly...

*sunglasses on*

... spared no expense.

I always loved that "spared no expense" line considering one of the reasons Nedry was such a willing pawn for Dogson was because of InGen being stingy as feth with him...

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I always loved that "spared no expense" line considering one of the reasons Nedry was such a willing pawn for Dogson was because of InGen being stingy as feth with him...

I feel like this wasn't really detailed as much in the movie. The book actually explains it quite well and makes you understand why he did it. The movie kind of goes "eh, money money money" and leaves it at that.

Yeah, it'd be harder to laugh at the stupid fat guy getting gutted* if you knew the reason he tried to do what he did was because he forced to work insane amounts of overtime without pay, threatened to have his other clients be "told how unreliable and gak he is" etc, by InGen if he didn't, etc.

*I'd still laugh. Regardless of backstory. I'm a monster.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I always loved that "spared no expense" line considering one of the reasons Nedry was such a willing pawn for Dogson was because of InGen being stingy as feth with him...

I get the impression Nedry was well paid, but didnt handle money well.

Debt problems don't necessarily means low pay but poor money management.
Hammond forgave Nedry's financial irregularities and kept him on but insisted he repair them himself, Hammonds attitude was fine, he just didnt anticipate Nedry's disloyalty, corporate security being overly focused on things with sharp teeth rather than human resources.

Everything about Nedry was greed and quick money. Nedry was obviously highly skilled and wanted to sell out for a one off payment. That money would not have lasted and Nedry would be unemployable at any level beyond that point. Even the monies he was to get from Dodgeson was poor recompense for a corporate traitor. Dodgesons employers knew this, offered him dollar signs and no worries. Nedry didn't think beyond that.

The character, while a caricature was also believable.

Dennis Nedry was from Cambridge, Massachusetts. He worked at Integrated Computer Systems. As Project Supervisor of the Jurassic Park Project, he was first told to "design a module for record keeping". Nedry was never told everything, and was always working in the dark. He had become very annoyed with InGen system; Hammond wanted things done that hadn't been included in his original contract, yet InGen demanded that it be done. Lawsuits were threatened, and letters were written to Nedry's other clients, and Nedry had no other choice but to give in to Hammond's demands.

Where are you getting what you got from? Is it something from the film, because I generally remember the book better.

To be more open, I'm talking about the book too. The film Nedry just comes across as a greedy feth, which is fine. I just like thinking of the Hammond line about expense + how Hammond is in the book.

Sadly in the movie version the entire undertone of Hammond screwing Nedry over is totally glossed over and instead of being an Everyman hero who’s forced into a corner by an awful boss. He’s just a fat guy who wanted to steal dinosaurs, which to be fair, still kind of makes him relatable and also still our hero.

Then again, I like how in the book Hammond and Malcolm die (though that got retconned). So for me, book > film.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I always loved that "spared no expense" line considering one of the reasons Nedry was such a willing pawn for Dogson was because of InGen being stingy as feth with him...

I never thought of that

I just recently rewatched Jurassic Park and yeah. Those CGI Raptors and the Rex especially have held up really well considering that was 1993 CGI! The movie is still awesome fun too

I'm trying to think of stuff that hasn't held up well, and Babylon 5 immediately sprung to mind. I've watched it recently, and oh man has that CGi just not lasted. Predator too. The special effects for the cloak and the plasma caster do not hold up imo (but the actual predator costume still looks great).

Battlefield Earth held up well...

*ducks*

Honestly I just don't remember that movie. That's how forgettable I found it. I remember not a damn thing XD

Robocop. It's still a good movie, don't get me wrong, but I don't fell like any of the special effects in the first 2 movies have stood the test of time (I don't much remember the third either ). Not even the Robocop costume itself.

 LordofHats wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I always loved that "spared no expense" line considering one of the reasons Nedry was such a willing pawn for Dogson was because of InGen being stingy as feth with him...

I never thought of that

I just recently rewatched Jurassic Park and yeah. Those CGI Raptors and the Rex especially have held up really well considering that was 1993 CGI! The movie is still awesome fun too

I'm trying to think of stuff that hasn't held up well, and Babylon 5 immediately sprung to mind. I've watched it recently, and oh man has that CGi just not lasted. Predator too. The special effects for the cloak and the plasma caster do not hold up imo (but the actual predator costume still looks great).

Babylon 5 had a budget smaller than most sitcoms. The CGI always looked cheap. It's what they did with it that made the show memorable. The Shadow War could never have been done with old motion control effects, and CGI allowed them to make really exotic ships.

Robocop will always be good in my eyes due to the almost appropriate amount of squibs (there can never be enough, but god did they try).

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Babylon 5 had a budget smaller than most sitcoms.

In that case it's actually kind of impressive

CGI's a tool. You can find great examples, and terrible examples. It's at it's best when it is integrated into a project from conception- and at it's worst when it is shoehorned in decades later. The worst of that I can recall is the dogfights over the first Death Star in Star Wars IV Special Edition. When those CGI X-wings poped up immersion just disintegrated!

I think the best part about the Special Editions was the insertion of Christen Hayden. It was also a very good use of CGI that highlighted how good a tool in film making it can be.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I think the best part about the Special Editions was the insertion of Christen Hayden. It was also a very good use of CGI that highlighted how good a tool in film making it can be.

That is some concentrated sarcasm there.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Battlefield Earth held up well...

*ducks*

You need not duck.

Battlefield Earth didn't fail on its SFX, but on almost everything else.

I tried to watch it recently. I couldn't. I genuinely couldn't get through it all in one sitting.

Had to stop.

Needed to breathe.

I have to agree, with the 70s Sci-fi because it feels real, not Sci fi at all

 welshhoppo wrote:
I've always throught that cgi looks too clean and crisp. You can always tell that it is a little bit off. They haven't quite left uncanny valley yet.

It's not that it's crisp, the lighting and movement is simply off. Even IN 2015, CGI still looks like unbelievable crap unless it's carefully hidden. IMO, Jurassic Park still has some of the best CGI thanks to those night scenes. They did a great job of blending the CGI and animatronics to the point it's hard to tell which one's which at times. But costumes and animatronics will always be superior to CGI until we can further increase the detail and light simulation on CGI models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 mitch_rifle wrote:
Both we're awesome and completely different in their own right

If your anadult it's probably not going to scare you anyway

The hunt continues however. I constantly try to find a horror movie that scares me so bad that I can't sleep at night, but it hasn't happened in over six years.

Thatt's because you aren't willing to suspend disbelief and let yourself be immersed in the movie universe.

At least, that is what I am interpreting from your previous statements. I maybe way off.

It's not that I'm not willing. I simply recognize it as fiction. It doesn't help how damn predictable Horror movies are either, especially modern ones. ALIEN at least did a better job then most given its lack of music, which makes it hard to anticipate when the Xenomorph is going to pop out compared to the Lady in Black for example (I pretty much nailed every appearance of the ghost in that movie due to musical cues).

 Wyzilla wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I've always throught that cgi looks too clean and crisp. You can always tell that it is a little bit off. They haven't quite left uncanny valley yet.

It's not that it's crisp, the lighting and movement is simply off. Even IN 2015, CGI still looks like unbelievable crap unless it's carefully hidden. IMO, Jurassic Park still has some of the best CGI thanks to those night scenes. They did a great job of blending the CGI and animatronics to the point it's hard to tell which one's which at times. But costumes and animatronics will always be superior to CGI until we can further increase the detail and light simulation on CGI models.
.

And yet, because practical effects are expensive and require more work, studios will not pay for them

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I've always throught that cgi looks too clean and crisp. You can always tell that it is a little bit off. They haven't quite left uncanny valley yet.

It's not that it's crisp, the lighting and movement is simply off. Even IN 2015, CGI still looks like unbelievable crap unless it's carefully hidden. IMO, Jurassic Park still has some of the best CGI thanks to those night scenes. They did a great job of blending the CGI and animatronics to the point it's hard to tell which one's which at times. But costumes and animatronics will always be superior to CGI until we can further increase the detail and light simulation on CGI models.
.

And yet, because practical effects are expensive and require more work, studios will not pay for them

Tiss a shame. I will always hold practical effects higher then CGI, or at least until CGI looks more "real", or Directors bother to hide their CGI again. Another good example is the Lord of the Rings, the Ururk Hai army in the Two Towers was almost entirely CGI, yet it looked real and believable. Meanwhile stuff like the Oliphants and Fell Beasts looked fake as hell due to being poorly hidden.

Thank god JJ Abrams is using more practical effects on the new Star Wars movies. A return to the old is welcomed.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I've always throught that cgi looks too clean and crisp. You can always tell that it is a little bit off. They haven't quite left uncanny valley yet.

It's not that it's crisp, the lighting and movement is simply off. Even IN 2015, CGI still looks like unbelievable crap unless it's carefully hidden. IMO, Jurassic Park still has some of the best CGI thanks to those night scenes. They did a great job of blending the CGI and animatronics to the point it's hard to tell which one's which at times. But costumes and animatronics will always be superior to CGI until we can further increase the detail and light simulation on CGI models.
.

And yet, because practical effects are expensive and require more work, studios will not pay for them

Tiss a shame. I will always hold practical effects higher then CGI, or at least until CGI looks more "real", or Directors bother to hide their CGI again. Another good example is the Lord of the Rings, the Ururk Hai army in the Two Towers was almost entirely CGI, yet it looked real and believable. Meanwhile stuff like the Oliphants and Fell Beasts looked fake as hell due to being poorly hidden.

Thank god JJ Abrams is using more practical effects on the new Star Wars movies. A return to the old is welcomed.

I doupt w/o the backing of the mouse, we would be getting CGI, They can afford it. With Starwars printing money

 MrDwhitey wrote:

Dennis Nedry was from Cambridge, Massachusetts. He worked at Integrated Computer Systems. As Project Supervisor of the Jurassic Park Project, he was first told to "design a module for record keeping". Nedry was never told everything, and was always working in the dark. He had become very annoyed with InGen system; Hammond wanted things done that hadn't been included in his original contract, yet InGen demanded that it be done. Lawsuits were threatened, and letters were written to Nedry's other clients, and Nedry had no other choice but to give in to Hammond's demands.

Where are you getting what you got from? Is it something from the film, because I generally remember the book better.

To be more open, I'm talking about the book too. The film Nedry just comes across as a greedy feth, which is fine. I just like thinking of the Hammond line about expense + how Hammond is in the book.

Sadly in the movie version the entire undertone of Hammond screwing Nedry over is totally glossed over and instead of being an Everyman hero who’s forced into a corner by an awful boss. He’s just a fat guy who wanted to steal dinosaurs, which to be fair, still kind of makes him relatable and also still our hero.

Then again, I like how in the book Hammond and Malcolm die (though that got retconned). So for me, book > film.

Hammond was also more of a jerk, whereas in the movie he's much more grandfatherly. Also, I thought Malcolm survived from his injuries (raptors, IIRC)?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

Dennis Nedry was from Cambridge, Massachusetts. He worked at Integrated Computer Systems. As Project Supervisor of the Jurassic Park Project, he was first told to "design a module for record keeping". Nedry was never told everything, and was always working in the dark. He had become very annoyed with InGen system; Hammond wanted things done that hadn't been included in his original contract, yet InGen demanded that it be done. Lawsuits were threatened, and letters were written to Nedry's other clients, and Nedry had no other choice but to give in to Hammond's demands.

Where are you getting what you got from? Is it something from the film, because I generally remember the book better.

To be more open, I'm talking about the book too. The film Nedry just comes across as a greedy feth, which is fine. I just like thinking of the Hammond line about expense + how Hammond is in the book.

Sadly in the movie version the entire undertone of Hammond screwing Nedry over is totally glossed over and instead of being an Everyman hero who’s forced into a corner by an awful boss. He’s just a fat guy who wanted to steal dinosaurs, which to be fair, still kind of makes him relatable and also still our hero.

Then again, I like how in the book Hammond and Malcolm die (though that got retconned). So for me, book > film.

Well,, it fits into the theme of the movie "Dinosaurs are Mejestic and magical"

Hammond was also more of a jerk, whereas in the movie he's much more grandfatherly. Also, I thought Malcolm survived from his injuries (raptors, IIRC)?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

I doupt w/o the backing of the mouse, we would be getting CGI, They can afford it. With Starwars printing money

Disney money has nothing to do with Abrams deciding on more practical effects.

Good CGI is much more expensive than practical effects. The idea that CGI is making movies cheaper is a myth.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

I doupt w/o the backing of the mouse, we would be getting CGI, They can afford it. With Starwars printing money

Disney money has nothing to do with Abrams deciding on more practical effects.

Good CGI is much more expensive than practical effects. The idea that CGI is making movies cheaper is a myth.

0
Yeah.........No. IT has everything to do with it.
CGI is also EASIER then practical effects. Why have a Lifesize Falcon when a CGI one does just as goo.

Because it is cheaper.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

I doupt w/o the backing of the mouse, we would be getting CGI, They can afford it. With Starwars printing money

Disney money has nothing to do with Abrams deciding on more practical effects.

Good CGI is much more expensive than practical effects. The idea that CGI is making movies cheaper is a myth.

0
Yeah.........No. IT has everything to do with it.
CGI is also EASIER then practical effects. Why have a Lifesize Falcon when a CGI one does just as goo.

CGI is easier for the director because it gives her/him more control over the shot on various levels which is why it is being used, but that doesn't mean it's "easier" to produce compared to practical effects. CGI takes an enormous amount of man-hours to finish, and the more elaborate and higher quality the effects, the more expensive and longer it takes. Money isn't the issue here, as just about every studio is more than happy to dump an endless amount of cash on CGI for even the most gakky of movies.

Regardless of your incorrect opinion, good CGI is much more expensive, especially if you want it to be flawless. Don't believe me? Look at the Lord of the Rings compared to The Hobbit: LotR used pretty damn good CGI and lots (and lots) of practical effects, including sets, costumes, prosthetics, tons of extras, and models (seriously, the models built for the movies are nothing short of incredible). The Hobbit on the other hand, had a staggering amount of digital effects, which despite everyone's complaints about them, are just about the best money can buy. In the end, the Hobbit movies cost more than twice as much to make compared to the first trilogy: each LotR movie cost lest than $94 million while the combined cost for the Hobbit trilogy was somewhere north of $560 million.

So no, Disney money has absolutely nothing to do with Abrams using a more traditional approach to a making special effects-heavy movie as far as money goes. He (and the studio) know that is what people want and they're willing to give it to us.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

I doupt w/o the backing of the mouse, we would be getting CGI, They can afford it. With Starwars printing money

Disney money has nothing to do with Abrams deciding on more practical effects.

Good CGI is much more expensive than practical effects. The idea that CGI is making movies cheaper is a myth.

0
Yeah.........No. IT has everything to do with it.
CGI is also EASIER then practical effects. Why have a Lifesize Falcon when a CGI one does just as goo.

CGI is easier for the director which is why it is being used, but that doesn't mean it's "easier" to produce compared to practical effects. CGI takes an enormous amount of man-hours to finish, and the better the effects, the more expensive and longer it takes. Money isn't the issue here, as just about every studio is more than happy to dump an endless amount of money on CGI for gakky movies.

Regardless of your incorrect opinion, CGI is much more expensive, especially if you want it flawless. Don't believe me? Look at the Lord of the Rings compared to The Hobbit. LotR used pretty damn good CGI and lots (and lots) of practical effects, including sets, costumes, prosthetics, tons of extras, and models (seriously, the models built for the movies are nothing short of incredible). The Hobbit on the other hand, had a staggering amount of digital effects, which despite everyone's complaints about them, are just about the best money can buy. In the end, the Hobbit movies cost more than twice as much as make compared to the first trilogy: each LotR movie cost lest than $94 million while the combined cost for the Hobbit trilogy was somewhere north of $560 million.

So no, Disney money has absolutely nothing to do with Abrams using a more traditional approach to a making special effects-heavy movie. He (and the studio) know that is what people want and they're willing to give it to us.

Also, much like with the original movies, they don't have to do insanity like make a life-sized model. They just make a small model, the size of a typical toy, and shoot it in the same style that Lucas did in the 70's. The most famous shot in the trilogy with the Star Destroyer going over the top of the screen was just a model anyway.

Also scooty, your sig is awesome.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Also, much like with the original movies, they don't have to do insanity like make a life-sized model. They just make a small model, the size of a typical toy, and shoot it in the same style that Lucas did in the 70's. The most famous shot in the trilogy with the Star Destroyer going over the top of the screen was just a model anyway.

Also scooty, your sig is awesome.

Well, studio scale models are generally pretty large. For Star Wars, ILM built a 5' model (!) of the Millennium Falcon for filming. The hero prop X-wings were roughly 1/24 scale which made them close to 3' from nose to engines. For The Empire Strikes Back, they built a 32" Falcon model based on the 5 foot model which is the one most often seen on display around the world.

The models built for Interstellar were pretty big too... for the Endurance (the 'mothership' they fly through the wormhole), they built a 4' study model and that was then used to build 1/15 scale filming "miniature" (the model was about 14' wide) for the exterior shots. The Ranger (the scout craft) was built as a 1:1 prop, a 1/15 scale miniature (for when it's docked on the Endurance), and a 1/5 scale filming miniature that was about 9' long. They also built multiple versions out of different materials for different shots.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Hammond was also more of a jerk, whereas in the movie he's much more grandfatherly. Also, I thought Malcolm survived from his injuries (raptors, IIRC)?

Originally he did die, but Crichton decided to revive him for the next book. Considering the sequel book was made after the film (where Malcolm and Hammond live), I'm guessing it might have something to do with his revival in the second book. Could of course be entirely wrong there.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Hammond was also more of a jerk, whereas in the movie he's much more grandfatherly. Also, I thought Malcolm survived from his injuries (raptors, IIRC)?

Originally he did die, but Crichton decided to revive him for the next book. Considering the sequel book was made after the film (where Malcolm and Hammond live), I'm guessing it might have something to do with his revival in the second book. Could of course be entirely wrong there.

The Lost World novel was released in 1995 and the film adaptation was released in 1997.

 LordofHats wrote:
Honestly I just don't remember that movie. That's how forgettable I found it. I remember not a damn thing XD

Robocop. It's still a good movie, don't get me wrong, but I don't fell like any of the special effects in the first 2 movies have stood the test of time (I don't much remember the third either ). Not even the Robocop costume itself.

Get out of this room, sir!

Seriously, the original is a classic. It's tongue-and-cheek, essentially just robot Dirty Harry, with a nice bit of Verhoeven social commentary thrown in. Watch it in that way, and it's a great deal of fun. It's certainly a much better film than the recent update, which lost that vein of humour going through it (as well as the violence level) and become indeterminably dull as a result.

I remember reading that the original film almost got changed drastically in the editing room because the studio thought the film might not have gone down well with police forces. As a result they staged a test screening with some local police forces. The cheers, when Robocop marched into the building (with the guy holed-up with hostages), and then just threw him out of the window with a one-liner, could apparently be heard outside the room. That persuaded the studio to release the film as it was.

Oh I like Robocop. It's just that when thinking of a film with special effects that haven't held up well that movie came to mind.

We have the luxury of comparing Alien to decades worth of other productions. When Alien came out it was literally creating a genre.

 LordofHats wrote:
Oh I like Robocop. It's just that when thinking of a film with special effects that haven't held up well that movie came to mind.

So you're telling me this isn't an accurate portrayal of someone that has been melted by toxic waste?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Hammond was also more of a jerk, whereas in the movie he's much more grandfatherly. Also, I thought Malcolm survived from his injuries (raptors, IIRC)?

Originally he did die, but Crichton decided to revive him for the next book. Considering the sequel book was made after the film (where Malcolm and Hammond live), I'm guessing it might have something to do with his revival in the second book. Could of course be entirely wrong there.

The Lost World novel was released in 1995 and the film adaptation was released in 1997.

I was meaning that the sequel book was made after the first film. My wording was really awful wasn't it?

My thoughts are that people greatly liked the Malcolm/Hammond in the film* and this may have influenced the writing of the second book.

*I have heard that a lot of people also liked Malcolm in the book and so wanted him to live.

I've been playing Alien Isolation this week and have to say it's caught the atmosphere of the original film very well. Genuinely scary, the girlfriend and I have been turning out the lights late at night and scaring ourselves silly with it. Jump scares are ok, but the constant tension works well too. It's the game this franchise deserved, until now it's been shoot 'em ups which where ok but I never felt immersed or invested in it.

 Orlanth wrote:
People are anti-CGI because of the appalling showcasing done in the Star Wars prequels, and similar movies, but especially Lucas's abominations. Done well CGI looked real, and has done for a long time. Jurassic Park is a good example of that, the dinos were mostly CGI, no one complains about CGI then and the tech has improved considerably since 1993.

CGI hasn't got crap, it has got lazy.

Agreed. Another excellent example is the LOTR films vs. the Hobbit films. Enough said.

Alien is such a beautifully designed film. The sound design and cinematography is gorgeous. It is a well done horror/thriller. I love that movie.

And Aliens is a great action movie and a good film. I love how both movies are completely different in style but are both awesome parts of the same series.

Jurassic Park was a fun film, but I hated that the guys I loved the most in the book (the hunter and the lawyer) were horrible in the film.. In the book, they were both heroes that lived. Heck, the lawyer fought the raptor is hand-to-hand. In the film, they both got killed in stupid ways.

Nevelon wrote:The 3rd movie wasn’t a bad movie, on it’s own. It was a horrible sequel the the second movie though. It does harken back to the first movie in tine though, with more suspense/horror, rather then action/horror.

The 4th was OK. I’m not a fan of some of the hybrid/queen themes, but the movie held together ok, there was some cool character interaction/lines, but it’s worth watching.

The biggest problems with both 3 and 4 is a bad case of sequel-itis. They are part of the franchise, but don’t really bring anything new to it. Just another visit to the world. Which is cool and all, but nothing really shines about them.

Medium of Death wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
It was better than the 3rd one.

Woah. Woah. Woah.

No. Stop that right now.

Maybe the third is a good film on its own, but like Nevelon said, it is a terrible sequel, i was so invested in Hicks and Newt, that they were just killed as a plot-point infuriated me immensely couldn't appreciate the movie on its own after that.

The fourth had some interesting twists, Hybrid Ripley clone was way cool, And Brad Dourf's Alien Fetish was fun to watch. I even liked the ideas in Prometheus the idea that the alien may have human origins.

It wasn't even a plot point. Hicks and Newt were plot foot notes at most

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Yeah.........No. IT has everything to do with it.
CGI is also EASIER then practical effects. Why have a Lifesize Falcon when a CGI one does just as goo.

Oh, I hope this is going to be followed by you regaling us with your vast experience with CGI and practical effects in the industry!

It's made me think of a quote from the Deed of Paksenarrion (one of my favourite fantasy stories).

Young sir, if you think it is easy to produce even illusory fire, I suggest you try. My old master, who is well known in the arts, always said that a fine convincing illusion was far more difficult - because reality carries its own conviction, and saves its own appearances. If you make a flame, it is a real flame, and you don't have to worry, once you've got it. But an illusory flame can go wrong in many subtle ways - even such a thing as forgetting which way the wind is blowing, so that it flickers in the wrong direction.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

You have put your finger on something there. Everything looked well put together and real because it was real.

The computer screens were real. The keyboards were actual keyboards with buttons that punched. The Alien was a very tall, thin Masai man in a suit, not CGI.

The biggest disconnect in the Star Wars prequel for me was the CGI everything in Episode III with "big red rocker switches on his chest" Darth Vader standing next to everything new.

The big disconnect is between ep1 and ep3.

Ep 1 STILL had about 80% physical props and sets (even if the sets WERE miniatures and composited in). Artoo was real. Yoda was still a puppet. That podrace stadium WAS a real prop (albeit a miniature, with each "head" in the stands a painted q-tip (cotton bud to us aussies) moved with little motors.

Move to ep3 and it's 20% props and models and 80% cgi and it shows.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps "young people these days" have grown up with instant gratification from VOD and consequently have not learned the patience to sit through a film or play that takes a couple of hours to build its plot. I don't mean this as a pejorative, simply a possible result of the way modern culture is produced and consumed.

35 years ago, if you wanted to watch a TV drama series, you had to sit down at 9 p.m. every Wednesday night to watch each episode as it was broadcast. There was no +1 channel, no catch-up TV and probably not even a VHS release until a couple of years after first broadcast. The virtue of patience was forced upon the viewer.

That doesn't track though, indeed I would argue the reverse; high quality serialised shows are more common today than they ever were in the past, and that's a direct result of "VOD culture" - most TV in the past was produced to be as episodic as possible, with actual story advancements reserved for rare "special event" episodes or two-parters that could be advertised well in advance to ensure maximum viewership(and thus ad revenue). Think back even just to the late 90's and how big a deal it was that Babylon 5 was all a single story told over multiple seasons that often required you to have seen certain previous episodes to understand what the hell was going on - these days that's the standard; Game of Thrones, Extant, the Battlestar reboot, Stargate Universe, it's now the norm for genre shows in particular to focus on building plots over multiple episodes and multi-season arcs, even the more episodic ones like Agents of SHIELD have a cohesive over-plot that ties everything together and gives most of the seemingly-"monster of the week" episodes broader context. And audiences want that - "young people these days" have and take the opportunity to watch more slow-burn serialised content in a year than was produced in a decade during The Before Time, and what's particularly hilarious about this proposition is that older and supposedly-wiser people were throwing exactly the same "instant gratification" aspersions at our generations for watching TV at all, afterall if we weren't impatient ungrateful young people we'd be reading a good old-fashioned book dagnabbit!

All shows are more common because there are more TV channels.

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but the original script for alien 3 by William Gibson focuses on Hicks and Bishop, and I suspect also influenced parts of the excellent Alien: Isolation. IMO, It's much better than Alien 3 ended up being.

Well worth a read, if you don't mind reading a script - You can see it here, if anyone's interested :
http://home.online.no/~bhundlan/scripts/alien3/gibson.htm

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All shows are more common because there are more TV channels.

Really? There's been a significant rise in the number of TV channels since the end of the 90's(actual content-producing channels, not 500 new Bible-bashing donation-traps), a rise commensurate with the increase in serialised programming - particularly among genre shows - that has come about in the last ten or so years after on-demand and online streaming became commonplace? I don't think so. We live in a time when Marvel, owned by Disney, will soon be running at least one perhaps two semi-serialised network TV shows and FOUR fully serialised on-demand-exclusive Netflix shows, concurrently. A time when Steven Spielberg is EP'ing a fully serialised high-concept sci-fi show on CBS. A time when a heavily serialised remake of Battlestar Galactica and a multi-season-plotline epic Game of Thrones adaptation are held up as the standard by which all genre shows are judged, one of the most critically acclaimed political dramas yet made is a slow-burn serialised Netflix show, and Breaking Bad is(inexplicably IMO, but there's no accounting for taste) an international phenomenon.

Your contention that young people have been spoiled by on-demand and so don't have the patience for longer or slow-building stories is unsupportable.

Multi-series with these long arcs only seemed to start with Babylon 5. Star Trek Next Gen was quite old school and so was voyager where stories were mostly standalone. X-Files had threads of an arc that split the series into one-offs and mythos episodes. Series where every episode fed into the next requiring a 'last time on...' Were popularised by Buffy and similar. These series that are entirely arc driven and require dedication from the viewer I think was done almost punishingly by Lost, but BSG and others like Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones have made it far more the normal expectation for a series. I don't think if Star Trek comes back now it could do the weekly episode format any more. It's the ease of access with home video and online/demand viewing being so cheap that really allows for it. 20 years ago when VHS was expensive and stuff was rarely repeated, it would be difficult to make many series that punished people for missing the only showing. Further, I think audiences are just more demanding now, they want complex immersive stuff like Lost, Ganes of Thrones and Breaking Bad.

I don't. I like my TV to be a one or two hour piece of entertainment that is complete in itself. There are still plenty of shows like that, e.g. Midsomer Murders, of course.

Soap had the "last week on 'Soap'" bit at the start of each show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_(TV_series)

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Multi-series with these long arcs only seemed to start with Babylon 5. Star Trek Next Gen was quite old school and so was voyager where stories were mostly standalone. X-Files had threads of an arc that split the series into one-offs and mythos episodes. Series where every episode fed into the next requiring a 'last time on...' Were popularised by Buffy and similar. These series that are entirely arc driven and require dedication from the viewer I think was done almost punishingly by Lost, but BSG and others like Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones have made it far more the normal expectation for a series. I don't think if Star Trek comes back now it could do the weekly episode format any more. It's the ease of access with home video and online/demand viewing being so cheap that really allows for it. 20 years ago when VHS was expensive and stuff was rarely repeated, it would be difficult to make many series that punished people for missing the only showing. Further, I think audiences are just more demanding now, they want complex immersive stuff like Lost, Ganes of Thrones and Breaking Bad.

Some of the articles I've read on this subject have suggested that this comes and goes in much the same way as fashions do. Obviously we can point to some of our favorite shows and say, "see season/series spanning plot arcs have always been here!" and you'd be right. At the same time some of us can also point to some of our favorite shows from the same time period and say, "See, plot arcs spanning an entire series/season are a new thing!" and you'd be sort of right.

Back when Friends and Frasier were at their height in popularity, it was considered the "norm" for most episodes to be not tied to each other in any meaningful way. Sure you'd have the occasional 2 part episodes, but they were more an exception. Even Scrubs is barely sequential or tied together because you have some vague "passage of time" in between seasons.

I suspect that at somepoint in the future we will return to the "one off" stories in the majority of TV shows.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
And fewer Lens Flares!

What's wrong with lense flares?