Each movie stands on its own - Alien (1979) Discussion

[–] Starman (412) 5 years ago

Each film reflects the time, in 1979 the horror was very much the highlight of the mainstream cinema (70's isolationism, distrust of the higher authorities), Aliens, emphasis on action was big (80's, the focus on physicality and militarism), Alien 3, psychological undertones were at the stage of reaching pop-culture (ie. Slience Of The Lambs, Unforgiven) and this same new wave of self-examination was sometimes taking on the nihilistic tones as well (ie.self destructive era of grunge and unconscious consumerism).

reply

[–] IrinaOma (648) 5 years ago

I adore the first 3 movies and I agree with your points. Resurrection and Prometheus had some moments too

reply

[–] GetOrfMoyLaand (27) 5 years ago

"The famous trailer in the theatres, back in '79, is an example of how all trailers should be"

This - such a good trailer, I often Youtube it just to watch it, like I would a song I like. Sadly an example of what we are no longer provided with by studios.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 5 years ago

Thank you for putting your finger on it for me

I love all three movies, but always felt conflicted about it ... until now

(well actually I don't "love" Alien³ so much as really like it)

reply

[–] BillySlater (4282) 5 years ago

Alien 3 sucked. Killing off Hicks and Newt cheapened Aliens.

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

How can it cheapen Aliens?
That's just nonsense.

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

It's not nonsense. He's talking about the storyline. Can't you figure this out? The writers screwed the pooch on this turkey.

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

By killing off two characters?
No, they didn't. There have been people on the boards who disliked a kid in Aliens. There are people who felt it was necessary to Ripleys story. There are people who don't recognise Alien 3 as canon and are still hoping for Blomkampfs sequel. Either way, none of this cheapens Aliens. That's like saying any sequel that kills off a likeable character cheapens its' predecessor. It can't. If anything it cheapens itself.

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Obviously, you do not understand people and psychology. All you do is kowtow like a worm and accept what the producers who were afraid to lose their money and writers of this franchise came up with when they didn't have a story. The young talented director David Fincher tried to accept what the wanted and make some semblance of the story and bring his style and artistry to make their movie. However, it was thwarted by the dumb people who would not leave the people they hired to make a vision of their ad hoc story. It didn't matter what Fincher produced. They were going to cut it down and change it to do it their way. Your brain cannot figure this out. Even the OP cannot figure this out and includes two great movies and tosses in Alien 3. It really is a travesty.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

what i got from that was :
insult
insult
didnt have a story
fincher made a story
they changed fincher story
insult
insult
its a travesty
and I really didnt get the penultimate sentence, possibly because it references the preceding drivel

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

You don't know about the back story either. What you got was you didn't get it.

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

Oh, so everybody else who doesn't think like you is wrong then?
Where am I kowtowing to anybody. I simply said that it's nonsense to say Alien 3 cheapens Aliens. It doesn't. Then you come in with the insults. You don't know me, so where do you get off saying I don't understand people? Who are you, BillySlaters dad?

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I didn't say that. What I criticized was the OP putting Alien 3 as part of the Alien franchise and you saying that it doesn't cheapen Aliens no matter if the main characters were killed off. In August of this year, the originator of the Alien 3 screenplay has come out with an Alien 3 complete graphic novel. I think he released it in five or six segments in 11/2018. Just ordered it this week. The original screen play for Alien 3 was much different as explained here. It doesn't kill off the heroes from Aliens.

"William Gibson's Alien III was a 1987 script draft for a sequel to Aliens.[1] Gibson was the first of ten different writers to tackle the Alien3 project, and his first draft screenplay is arguably the most well-known of the unmade scripts for the film as it has been available to read on the internet for many years. The story bears no relation to Alien3 as it was ultimately made, and instead revolves around Corporal Hicks and Bishop battling genetically-altered Xenomorphs aboard an enormous space station named Anchorpoint.

Gibson later produced a second draft of his script in 1988,[1] altering the overall tone of the screenplay fairly drastically — whereas the first draft is an action extravaganza very much in the vein of Aliens, the second draft radically scales back the number of Xenomorph antagonists to just three, and instead presents a story more akin to the claustrophobic horror of Alien. However, both iterations of Gibson's screenplay were turned down by the studio. His attempts were followed by Eric Red's unmade script.

Although never produced as a film, Gibson's script (specifically his second draft) has been adapted and released in several other forms. In 2018, it was adapted as the comic series William Gibson's Alien 3 by Dark Horse Comics, while in 2019 it was adapted as an audio drama, starring Michael Biehn and Lance Henriksen, directed by Dirk Maggs and published by Audible Studios."

https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/Alien_III_(William_Gibson)

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

You didn't say that I don't understand people?
Yes you did:
Obviously, you do not understand people and psychology.

You didn't say what, that I was kowtowing?
Yes you did: Here
All you do is kowtow like a worm and accept what the producers who were afraid to lose their money and writers of this franchise came up with when they didn't have a story.

You didn't say my brain cannot figure this out?
Yes you did:
Your brain cannot figure this out.

It would seem that you did indeed say it.

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I said all of the above because that's what you are. Own it.

What I didn't say was everybody else who doesn't think like me is wrong.

First and foremost, you could not figure out the Alien 3 doesn't belong with Alien and Aliens. I thought the OP just lumped A3 with the first two in order to give it a better movie impression than if it was stand alone. Why didn't he include Alien Resurrection? That had Sigourney Weaver as Ripley. Both were POS movies, but we're discussing A3. If I saw it in a theater, then I would ask for my money back; I would not be able to see it until the end.

What I saw was a dvd rental version and it was horrible. I assume it was the theatrical version. Then I bought the Alien Quadrilogy and was still disappointed with A3 (has the David Fincher workprint version). Alien Resurrection was even worse. David Fincher's workprint version is much better. I hope the following link describes it better -- https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=1405 compared to the theatrical version. Fincher had decided to not own A3 before this. Who know what version the OP was talking about?

Anyway, we see the first screenplay writer of A3 stepping up this year with a graphic novel. Hopefully, that will be make it into the Alien franchise and we can forget A3 and AR.

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

So now you DID say it.

First and foremost, you could not figure out the Alien 3 doesn't belong with Alien and Aliens.

Actually it's you who can't figure it out. You are an idiot who thinks their opinion is law.
NEWSFLASH: It isn't!

I thought the OP just lumped A3 with the first two in order to give it a better movie impression than if it was stand alone. Why didn't he include Alien Resurrection?

Maybe because just like YOU don't see A3 as belonging, he doesn't see AR as belonging.

That had Sigourney Weaver as Ripley. Both were POS movies, but we're discussing A3. If I saw it in a theater, then I would ask for my money back; I would not be able to see it until the end.

Again, that's your opinion, not law or fact!

I've seen the special edition (It's not Finchers workprint version as you suggest). Not relevant to what the OP is talking about. He/she likes A3, period.

Anyway, we see the first screenplay writer of A3 stepping up this year with a graphic novel. Hopefully, that will be make it into the Alien franchise and we can forget A3 and AR.

Not WE....YOU!

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

So far, you've had several chance to critique my critique, but do not and use ad hominem attacks. You cannot explain well in your replies. That is a sure sign of a loser. I can accept someone who differs in opinion of my review on a movie or "thinks" differently from me, but I don't think you even know much about this movie.

>>wearslan: Actually it's you who can't figure it out. You are an idiot who thinks their opinion is law.
NEWSFLASH: It isn't!<<

Your opening sentence is a perfect example of what I said. I put "thinks" in quotes because I don't think you've put much effort in your reviews. Now, I am critiquing your review. Do you read what you just wrote before posting? Just think if another reader read your post? It doesn't make much sense haha.

>>Maybe because just like YOU don't see A3 as belonging, he doesn't see AR as belonging.<<

The way most Alien franchise fans and I looked at was this was with Sigourney Weaver as Ripley story arc. We know that different directors and writers took on the project. The knowledgeable fan would know that this movie had problems with the production as there wasn't a screen play in place and there were arguments with the producers and author of novelization, story writers, directors, other executives, actors, and more. Now, did the OP mention any of this? No. He doesn't even explain adequately that there were four movies. All four were out already.

I don't think A3 belongs because it doesn't have the same quality as the first two and the film story changed so much from the original screen play. I pointed this out already with William Gibson.

>>Again, that's your opinion, not law or fact!<<

Lol, you should take your meds. You are coming unglued. Why am I the only one who knows what other people write is their opinion

The way I look at this story arc is they killed off the main characters from Aliens (A2) and took it a new direction.

continued

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I think they paid Weaver more money and it seems that and to have Walter Hill and Larry Ferguson be the screenplay writers for their treatment of Ripley is all she was concerned about, i.e. somewhat self-serving and greed.

As for the rest, it is easy to see that you've lost what I and others who criticize this movie are discussing and it has become personal with you.

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

Most Alien fans?
Nine people have posted on here (fans you would think) and of those nine two (BillySlater and yourself) have said they didn't like (hate in fact) Alien 3. Hardly most is it?
As for citique your critique and ad hominem attacks, let's not forget who started with that, then retracted it and then confirmed it. I don't agree with the poster (BillySlater) that Alien 3 cheapens Aliens. Simple. You are the one who doesn't get that.
You can't attack somebody with opinions like that and not expect a retort. Furthermore, it isn't just me who thinks you attack people, see below

[–] mark (2521) 3 days ago
what i got from that was :
insult
insult
didnt have a story
fincher made a story
they changed fincher story
insult
insult
its a travesty
and I really didnt get the penultimate sentence, possibly because it references the preceding drivel

You remind me a lot of a poster called LukeLovesFilms who was on here some years back. Anything that altered James Camerons story arc was wrong as far as they were concerned. i mean you do know (I'm presuming of course) that there are many people who believe Cameron ruined the story arc by making the Aliens basically big bugs with a Queen. Are they idiots, don't they understand the need to expand on the Alien life cycle. Or is it just their opinion?
Either way I stand by my statement, Alien 3 does not and to be fair can not cheapen Aliens.

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I got the William Gibson's Alien 3 hardcover graphic novel which came out this month based on his ORIGINAL screenplay and have started reading it. It was adapted into a comics series first by Dark Horse in November 2018 and then an audio book in May 2019. So far, we have Ripley, Newt, and Hicks alive with the Queen takes Bishop torn in half and gurgling.

Not only have you and mark been easily led aside like the lemmings you are by the opening. Slick cinematography from a director I like, David Fincher, isn't enough tho. So right off the bat, I was saying wtf is this? This just killed the story from Aliens. I'm not the only one who was enraged by this, but professional author Alan Dean Foster who was suppose to do the novelization was upset. I think William Gibson, would have been, too, but he had already written his screenplay and was paid. It was out of his hands.

Gibson's screenplay actually continues the story from award winning Aliens and includes what happens when a pod from a military ship crash lands on a maximum security prison planet. Did you get that from Alien 3 that you saw? We find out an hour of so later that it's a maximum security planet with no weapons. That's really intelligent piece of writing there. I would probably have walked out right there if I saw this turkey turd in a theater.

You guys are like cheap whores who will spread their legs for any d*ck who comes along with money. While I do like Walter Hill and Larry Ferguson abilities to write screenplays on short notice or pull projects together, I did not like them as the needy and greedy producers of this Alien 3 farce. It hypes itself as, "3 Times the Suspense," "3 Times the Danger," and "3 Times the Terror," but there is only one alien and a queen which we don't really see until the ending. You guys bought into a movie that didn't even have a storyline once Gibson's screenplay was turned down, but bits and pieces stolen from it.

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

It hypes itself as, "3 Times the Suspense," "3 Times the Danger," and "3 Times the Terror," but there is only one alien and a queen which we don't really see until the ending.

^^^^
Guess you don't understand what that means then eh?
Never mind, you were never gonna like this movie were you?

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I didn't know what to expect, but did hear derogatory things about it. That's why I didn't bother to see it in a theater. I didn't know they were going to kill off the main characters from Aliens. If you compare it to Gibson's original screenplay, then you'll see a big difference. It has nothing to do with a prison planet, but some political group with some power captures the military ship Sularco, the whole ship and not just the pod. Here's the synopsis:

“Following the deadly events of Aliens, the Union of Progressive Peoples intercepts the spaceship carrying the hibernating bodies of Ripley, Hicks, Newt, and Bishop. But unbeknownst to them, they have also picked up another deadly passenger whose discovery will unleash a race between two governments to weaponize the xenomorph in this horrifying and poignant Cold War-themed thriller.”

That's another question Alien 3 didn't answer and that was how did the facehugger get on board the Sularco? Even if the Sularco had crash landed on a prison planet, wouldn't you think Weyland-Yutani or the government would immediately send a party out to protect the secrets of a military ship?

Moreover, Gibson's story goes into one of the primary conflicts of the first two films, the struggled between personal welfare and corporate interests, by introducing a hefty dose of governmental strife into the equation. Instead, what we got with the prison planet was unrelated Marxist tripe.

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

What makes you think I haven't already read Gibsons treatment?

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

So you know about William Gibson's talents? I'm a writer hobbyist and hope to get published one day, but am not in his league and will never be that sophisticated. Alan Dean Foster is another proven author and would've been great for the Alien 3 novelization.

If you know what is very good to great sci-fi, then you should have immediately realized this movie was crap and put together on the fly. It should've been a schlock film, but had enough cinematography to make it somewhat watchable, but even the director's vision was snuffed out.

Ironically, I can hope to do what Walter Hill does as hit man type to put together a script for a movie in trouble in short time.

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

ahem! Alan Dean Foster did write the Alien 3 novelization (I should know as I own it). It has a couple of things not even in the special edition of the movie.

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I'm going to assume you didn't know about William Gibson since you avoided answering my question.

First edition? Which story did he write? I read he had an argument with the Walter Hill et al and would not write the matching the prison planet story line lol. He had ideas for the Ripley, Newt, Hicks, and Bishop. I think he was the writer who loved the Bishop character. Actually, I liked them all and so did many other Alien fans.

You sound like you're still on the producers side even though I told you this backstory. Crazy.

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

Of course I know about William Gibson but the issue in your last post for me, was you not knowing that Alan Dean Foster wrote the novelization for A3. Read it and you will find it is the matching story for the movie (special edition) with a couple of extra bits. So argument or not he took the money and ran.
I'm not on any side but my own. I've said previously that they could have sent Hicks and Newt off in a different EEV. They didn't, but you know what? Sigourney Weaver wasn't too bothered either seeing as she just rolled with it. She took a lot of money and made a lot of demands (ie no guns, kill off Ripley) so don't think she couldn't have swung it. The studios are guilty of not wanting to make a movie without Ripley and massive interference throughout, of that there is no doubt, and I was never happy with the Theatrical Cut of the movie. But I don't mind the Special Edition. That doesn't make me crazy, it means I have a different opinion to you.

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

This is the kick off to a prime movie weekend. My family had Thanksgiving a day early and so I somewhat started early. You can bet no Alien 3 will be show. Maybe that and Resurrection will never be show in our house again haha.

Ugh on Alan Dean Foster even with the special edition and crumbs. I think director Fincher even disowned that.

>>I'm not on any side but my own. I've said previously that they could have sent Hicks and Newt off in a different EEV.<<

Was that ever explained? Why an EEV? Why not the Sulaco? Furthermore, how did the egg get on board? Gibson's story explains it.

>>Sigourney Weaver wasn't too bothered either seeing as she just rolled with it. She took a lot of money and made a lot of demands (ie no guns, kill off Ripley) so don't think she couldn't have swung it. The studios are guilty of not wanting to make a movie without Ripley and massive interference throughout, of that there is no doubt, and I was never happy with the Theatrical Cut of the movie. But I don't mind the Special Edition. That doesn't make me crazy, it means I have a different opinion to you.<<

Last point first. You can have any opinion you want, but your comment encroached on many fans opinions about sacrosanct Alien and Aliens. First, by Scott and O'Bannon, and then Cameron.

What I liked about those were they were part of my childhood along with Star Wars as with any kid who grew up in the 70s.

Clearly, with the no guns Ripley talk, you are liberal. That didn't occur to me, but I did notice the Marxism. Weaver took the money for sure. I try to keep the politics out, but if its in the movie, then fair game.

I may watch Alien and Aliens again at home and go out and watch new movies at the theater except The Irishman. I can hope they reboot from Alien 3, but likely it will be a streaming movie. I'll be thinking of you and lmao when they do if they do Gibson's screen play.

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

Was that ever explained? Why an EEV? Why not the Sulaco?

Eh? It was on FIRE!

Last point first. You can have any opinion you want, but your comment encroached on many fans opinions about sacrosanct Alien and Aliens.

And yours on fans who felt otherwise.

What I liked about those were they were part of my childhood along with Star Wars as with any kid who grew up in the 70s.

They were part of mine too.

Clearly, with the no guns Ripley talk, you are liberal.

Me? How so? It was Weavers demand not mine.

. I can hope they reboot from Alien 3, but likely it will be a streaming movie. I'll be thinking of you and lmao when they do if they do Gibson's screen play.
It makes no difference to me whatsoever if they do Gibsons script. They are still talking about Blomkampfs movie, that should make you happy enough.

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Alien 5? I think Blomkampf's movie with Weaver as Ripley is dead. Right now, I'm going for Gibson's script, whom I think you thought was fine, and reboot of Alien 3. There should be a lot of fans for that and those who liked the misconstrued Alien 3 will just follow along. It's time for a new Ripley star.

ETA: Aliens producer James Cameron could be saying Disney has given the green light for Alien 5 and they own 20th Century Fox and its films now. I don't know who to believe.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Alien 3 sucked. Killing off Hicks and Newt cheapened Aliens.

yeah i know right? cos then they could have formed a team , like , er , AlienBusters!
with special overalls with their names on ,and little red beeny hats for each member.

and then Hick could go mental at the next Weylon trial and say "you wernt there man!" , actually they'd need Hudson back for that too. - Yeah , he could be the winston Zeddemore of the team ...

oh , and Carter could survive too - and bring back a face hugger stuffed in his undies , and then it gets out and is loose in the tenements of New York - incubating whole apartments with new Aliens.

Got a Xenomorph in the Attic? who you gonna call?

/sarcasm

reply

[–] BillySlater (4282) 5 years ago

They didn´t have to form anything. They could have just had them rescued and continued a different story with Ripley. Newt´s death in particular makes redundant Ripley´s entire arc in Aliens.

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

I agree that they could have sent Newt and Hicks off in a different EEV. They didn't, but that doesn't cheapen Aliens, if anything it cheapens Alien 3. As for making Ripleys entire arc redundant, how so? Her arc was to prevent the company getting a specimen. She succeeds. All Alien 3 does is say 'Hey, no happy endings'! If folks can't accept that then just watch the first two.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Theyre dead ok ? can I go now?

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 5 years ago

Lol

reply

[–] BillySlater (4282) 5 years ago

You secure that shit, Hudson!

reply

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

http://tiny.cc/41yqgz

LMAO.

reply

[–] exithereplease (3553) 5 years ago

Alien³ is a dark film. It's not fun to watch. It's depressing. All the characters are terrible: murders, rapists oh my!

And the ending is terrible...

But it's a much, much better film than Alien: Resurrection.

In fact, I think it's better than Aliens.

reply