Is the fact there is no Women in it.
The original from 1951 and the prequel from 2011 both had Women, there was no reason for this to be a total sausage fest.
Get rid of one or two of the dude bro scientists and replace them with beautiful Women and shazam this film is even better.
No way, this film worked well with no women. No women were needed.
shareI prefer watching Women over Men. You're right no Women were 'needed' but they would have improved proceedings for sure. There was no reason not to have any, as I said the original film had a few as did the prequel. It can be done, it's not a case of being 'woke' or inclusive. Just the natural order of things.
Plenty of stellar Sci-Fi films are improved by the prescene of a talented actress.
- Mary Elizabeth Winstead was brilliant in the prequel, arguably the best thing about it. That's one thing that film got right over this one.
- Sigourney Weaver was superb in Alien. The face of the franchise. The film wouldn't have been the same with a Male lead in my opinion.
- Noomi Rapace was the best thing about Prometheus.
- Outside of Sci-Fi Horror, JoBeth Williams was great in Poltergeist. Released around the same time.
Picturing this film with a few of the generic dude bro scientists replaced with Women like Weaver and Williams (or to keep it Carpenter. Jamie Lee Curtis, Nancy Kyes or Adrienne Barbeau) is an undeniable improvement in my opinion.
That's one of the issues with this film I can't remember all the characters names. I don't have this issue with, for example, Halloween (1978). The characters are so memorable in that film and it's easy to remember their names and personalities. This film has a few too many generic dudes. Replacing them with Women who'd stand out a lot more would be an improvement.
But in the 80's, much like today, women typically didn't volunteer to spend 6 months in that kind of job and/or environment. If I remember the documentaries and sleeve notes for this film correctly, they only had one woman on the film crew, because no women WANTED to spend the time filming in British Columbia. I guarantee an Antarctica research team would be spending more time in the frozen back of beyond than the shooting time this film took.
It'd be unrealistic to put women in there just for the hell of it.
As for the re-quel (I'm using that to refer to poor attempts to make prequels that might as well be remakes), well, there were only two of them there, so I'm not sure that proves your point anyway. Only 1 of them seemed to have a job. The other was killed swiftly and did nothing of note except try to kill the other one. She literally had no role in the film except to make up the quota. And even if you accept that as being set in 1981, the fact it took a Scandinavian research team to incorporate women instead of the US one, that tells you the US were not that progressive anyway.
As for the original, again, if my memory serves well, there was only one, woman, and SHE was just the damsel-in-distress-plus-love-interest for the male lead.
The weird thing is though, I seem to remember that, like Alien, the roles in the Carpenter film were written without specifically being to be male or female, so at some point a decision was made that might not have been the film-maker's. Possibly another example of studio interference.
OP is a kook..
shareStrange, I have always thought that all-male-cast was one of strong points and made this movie stand out. You don't see this kind of movie making too often, especially nowadays.
My biggest complaint about this movie was that the Blair matter went too far with building a UFO in icecave underground. That was a bit unbelievable.
I used to think that also but who knows what the capabilities of the alien were that we did not see onscreen. Could it assimilate into into some strange thing that could perform the work amazingly fast? It would have the knowledge from wherever it came from plus those it has digested from the Swedish, I mean Norwegian outpost, and those who it had already taken at US outpost 31.
I picture it slithering around with multiple hand like things to grip tools with with eyes close to every one, moving at lightning speed to build the craft. When not working in the craft it would assimilate back into looking like Blair.
It’s just a thought, but it’s what I picture.
Agree with both of your points here. Though Mrmojo brings up an interesting counterpoint to the small ‘complaint’ we share.
Either way it’s a nearly perfect film.
I'm a woman and I preferred thos film to the idiotic prequel despite the fact Kristofer Hijvu was in it. Sometimes ya just gotta let boys be boys and leave women OUT! On the audio commentary of the film John Carpenter and Kurt Russell said there was only one woman in the crew.
The film was perfect without a woman in it. And Winstead was bad in the prequel. Just bad.
https://media.tenor.com/images/a96aec5c5d8a86d3e612ecf61dd12592/tenor.gif
Signed,
Another woman
👍😊
shareRight, a woman on the internet named prometheus = man
shareit would be unbelievable and take u out of the story reminding u you are watching a film. why in earth would a beautiful woman want to live in an Antarctic base?!? maybe a homely girl at best but even then it would just take out of the story. extreme environments like this have extreme ugly people living there not hot models who got lost from the beach
shareYou're saying that people who choose to be stationed at Antarctic research bases are all 'extreme ugly'?
shareFuel Operators crew -McMurdo station Antarctica.
https://awomensthing.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/A-Womens-Thing-hannah-jane-valian-crew-1600x983.jpg
Oh my goodness, DMT was right! They're ogres!!
shareI like sex appeal in a film just as much as the next man, and woman can bring a different dynamic to a guy oriented movie.
But like the The Great Escape (63), Cool Hand Luke(67), Deliverance (72), Papillon (73) and The Shawshank Redemption (94)...Sometimes a movie is better without it.
Couldn't be made as is today, the studio executives would insist on having a female.
that's what makes it good.
share