So, so, bad. - Aliens (1986) Discussion

[–] Kruleworld 8 years ago

I question your claim of a high IQ if you can't appreciate a well directed classic film. A film doesn't need 60 pages of dialogue to be 'good'.

and yes, it IS a classic.

"He's dusted, busted and disgusted, but he's ok"

reply

[–] qfal 8 years ago

LOL, no, it isn't.

reply

[–] stevegrayston-75-221538 8 years ago

so does star wars is that bad too?

reply

[–] Elder_Yautija 8 years ago

Lol. It IS. You're just too much of a nerd to notice.

reply

[–] sgillespie-23741 8 years ago

There is no argument here. Aliens is a classic film. You may not like it but it is still firmly entrenched in cinema history as a classic.

you may think it does not deserve to be a classic, but that does not change the fact that it is one. For example, i have always found the film Heat to be quite overrated, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a modern classic. I just have to live with that. And you have to live with Aliens.

reply

[–] bluersun 8 years ago

It's probably best you just ignore the trolls/retards - they soon f?ck off.

reply

[–] slashcann 8 years ago

What a moron you really are

A sausage is always a sausage

reply

[–] legend_001 8 years ago

You claim to be of a higher intelligence but your responses tell me otherwise 'lol'

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 8 years ago

Is that why you watched it then, Qfail? 

reply

[–] Alucard89 8 years ago

Lol, this is one of the best action/sci-fi/horror movies ever made. This is even imdb's creator's #1 movie who has seen it over 100 times according to him :D

reply

[–] qfal 8 years ago

And he was 19 when it was released which supports my point that only a teen or low IQ person would think this was any good.

reply

[–] Alucard89 8 years ago

Then you probably think movies such as T2: Judgement Day, Predator (1987), The Thing (1982), The Fifth Element were also terrible or? :D

P.S. So you think at the age of 19, a person is still a teenager + definitely has a low IQ?

P.S.S. Who says he watched it as soon as it was released..? Maybe his IQ increased significantly by the time he watched it :D:D:D

reply

[–] Ymok10 8 years ago

I would have to agree. Having just seen Alien and Aliens recently, I would have to say the first one was way better and much more believable. Throughout the whole movie, me and my SO just kept pointing out unbelievable scenarios; it was so distracting. Just one example is how the black suited people straight up brushed-aside her story, surely someone would have to consider it, it's only rational and fair. And also, in a space mission with soldiers, you'd expect the whole crew to be professional and take any mission seriously, especially during debriefing; not act like raging teenage jocks. I doubt any senior officer would tolerate it and it just made the whole thing so cheesy (to us). Don't even get me started with Private Vasquez and her tank top (didn't complain though, dem boobies).

It did seem like this movie was made especially for teenagers. I was just so surprised it received such a big rating when I looked it up here. I thought for sure more people would point out the same things me and my SO did. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents and English isn't my first language so forgive any errors.

reply

[–] sgillespie-23741 8 years ago

Ymok10,

The suits are not interested in what is fair or rational. They are interested in finding someone to blame. Ripley's reason that "an Alien species never charted before killed my entire crew so I had to blow up my ship" does not sound more logical than one woman going crazy. And remember, families had been living on the planet in question for decades without reporting anything similar to Ripley's story (because the eggs in the ship were undisturbed until Burke sent Newt's parents there). It seems like you really wanted them to believe her, but that doesn't make it obvious that they should have. I get it. It's frustrating! She's telling the truth so they should believe her! However, it is understandable that they don't.

Think about it more and you'll remember that there's never been a hostile Alien recorded in that planetary system. Lets say you send what is essentially a group of space truckers on a routine cargo mission, and one person comes back years and years later with zero evidence claiming that one of the crew was an evil robot and a single murderous Alien butchered everyone else, PLUS unknown to you there is a very rich and powerful corporation pulling strings to discredit her. You're telling me you'd believe that story with zero evidence just because it's "fair"? It only seems fair to the audience because we know that Ripley is telling the truth, but the hearing board has no idea. They can only go off of the evidence, which does not back up her story at all. Besides, when they do find a shred of evidence (lost communication with the planet's colony) they look into it anyway, although without taking it too seriously.

The marines are grunts... many soldiers are cocky and trust what they can see with their own eyes, not the stories of someone who is seeing a therapist and has recently been discredited. Not all marines are ignorant, I'm not saying that, but this squad was literally inspired by US troops in Vietnam (again, not all of them). Plus. when Hudson does take it too far in the debriefing the Sergeant is annoyed and lectures him with presumably further punishment off screen. And fyi, marines wear tank tops often. Perhaps not into active combat, but they do wear them in war zones so it isn't THAT much of a stretch to suggest that a character in an fictional alternate universe might wear one for what she expects will be a routine, simple mission. You make a good point about it being a poor tactical choice, but it's not as if she is wearing a skirt or a pair of pajamas. When a soldier in a tank top is the biggest flaw in a film's logic that film is pretty good. Even the first film has some minor flaws.

You seem to be nitpicking the film and not really looking at it subjectively, although I truly appreciate your level headed and non-aggressive post. Many others are not as respectful as you when they post on IMDB.

reply

[–] Ymok10 8 years ago

You're right about the suits, they were just looking for someone to blame. I just hoped that they would've been more considerate with her, considering the setting of the movie being in the 2180's; but I guess suits will be suits, even in the future.

And although you make a good point about marines and tank tops, it still really bugs me. I think it's the combination of that and their gear in general. I had hoped (again) that they had worn much more sophisticated gear, considering this is set in the far future. But I understand it was a product of it's time; like how you said it was literally inspired by US troops in Vietnam, which also explains their behaviors. I'm a 1991 baby, so I like my future soldiers... well, future-y.

I admit, we were nitpicking. Partly because we had just seen the first movie and enjoyed it a lot. It had the feel of a classic sci-fi movie. A little dragging but still had enough to keep us intrigued. But this movie had so much going on, so much action (again, not complaining). It was just really different. I really appreciate the response, and I have to say, I didn't expect a very civil exchange of opinions here. Cheers!

reply

[–] sgillespie-23741 8 years ago

Likewise. yeah, and I'm sorry if i came on too harsh. There are lot of trolls who tear apart the film just because it is different. I appreciate the civil exchange as well, and i can see how you'd prefer the first film. Cheers!

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 8 years ago

Given that many people complain about this being a "dumb action film" compared to Alien, it's delightful to hear you (quite rightly) point out that there is a lot happening in the film - What you'll fnd is that you notice lots of little extra touches every time you re-watch the film, too.

I understand the lack of 'futurey-ness', but this was the 1980s, to a certain extent - Single colour monitors (laptops weren't that established) were still quite impressive.
But as far as the soldiers go - The kit has to look futuristic, but stil identifiable with today's gear. Go too futuristic and you get Star Trek. The M41-A Pulse Rifle looks like something in use today, for example and those hand-welders are just awesome!

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 8 years ago

Just one example is how the black suited people straight up brushed-aside her story, surely someone would have to consider it, it's only rational and fair.

Have you not ever experienced the management mentality of a large corporate company in a privatised industry?
They are exactly like that, for the most part.
But as is, Burke did consider it, which is why he sent the colonists out there to the derelict and why Ripley had a crack at him for it later on.

And also, in a space mission with soldiers, you'd expect the whole crew to be professional and take any mission seriously, especially during debriefing; not act like raging teenage jocks.

1/. As a long-time soldier myself, how do you think I'd react if some new guy fresh out of training with no actual experience came along and started chucking orders around as if he knew anything, before telling me I'm going on some mission to battle magical fairies and elves and orcs?
Same thing here, except it's "aliens", with the one and only source of intel being some crackpot nutcase woman who blew up her ship... and possibly killed her own crew.

2/. The lackadaisical attitude of the Marines was a reflection of the media portrayal of soldiers during the Vietnam War, an intention decision on Cameron's part.

3/. Soldiers have often been a complete rabble. Wellington once described his army as "the scum of the Earth", often looting, raping and pillaging towns (Cuidad Rodrigo, Badahoj, etc) they'd just conquered.

I doubt any senior officer would tolerate it and it just made the whole thing so cheesy (to us).

That is, in part, also the point. It's an 80s thing.
But it also shows the soldiers don't think the mission itself is serious enough to take seriously, in the same way as a highly trained surgeon would if you put him on dish-scrubbing duty in the hospital canteen.
Their misbehaving is also to show their lack of respect for their inexperienced commander. Note how they jump to when Sergeant Apone gives the orders.

reply

[–] Ymok10 8 years ago

I appreciate you dissecting the points I'd made and explaining the scenes from a different perspective. I admit, we were nitpicking. Partly because we had just seen the first movie and enjoyed it quite a lot. This movie just caught us off-guard with so much going on. I can appreciate the movie a little more now, should I watch again in the future. Cheers!

reply

[–] stevegrayston-75-221538 8 years ago

why do they care it happened 57 years prior evrything had long been settled and remember 'there had been colonies there for 20 years and they never complained of any hostile organism '!

reply

[–] DrClemens 8 years ago

Agreed. A mere action movie and nothing else.

reply

[–] sgillespie-23741 8 years ago

I love that Aliens haters arguments are vague insults and the Aliens fans have all responded with logic.

reply

[–] TheSmashingTesticles 8 years ago

Would you date a black girl? You can't resist those big lips and big black booties. 😁

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 8 years ago

That's because we're the only ones qualified to remote-pilot the Dropship, anyway...

reply

[–] syousefnia 8 years ago

Well it's set in 2179 and the soldiers behaved like children , not like the culturally advanced people they are suppose to be. so yes , it was a mediocre action movie.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 8 years ago

Who ever said they were culturally advanced?
Even in today's world, we're about the same - That's corporate consumerism for you. Everyone's out for their own little slice of the pie and that's it. Not exactly advanced...

reply

[–] syousefnia 8 years ago

Nobody has to say it , there are certain things that we should expect when we talk about future , if the movie is claiming to be in 2179 , the director shouldn't put the year that the movie is getting filmed as the standard for his production. It is a complete lack of vision.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 8 years ago

Ever heard of a dystopian future? Not exactly culturally advanced...

Also, if you try and go too advanced in your cultural portrayal, the audience of today with not be able to relate to it.
As is, they took the whole 80s corporate money-grabbing idea and furthered it along a quite reasonable progression... if anything, you should be more concerned that we're already going that way today.

Think about it - A corporation with fingers in so many different pies, to the point where they are almost equal in command of military operations to the actual military.
Now think about the sort of low-rank workers that would produce - Remember too that this culture was already well-illustrated in Alien, with the attitudes of Brett and Parker. It's also not a new concept at all, almost mirroring merchant vessels from the 1600s.

If anything, it shows how much humanity has NOT fundamentally changed and progressed by today, and so cannot expect much in the next few hundred years, either.

Or would you prefer the shiney, nicey-nicey pretend advancement of Star Trek, where they blab about being upstanding moral characters all the time, but then revert back to the same base savagery whenever the episode calls for it?

reply

[–] sgillespie-23741 8 years ago

Great points ttkaskmaster. Just because people expected the marines to be more badass does not mean the film suffers because of it. The point is that corporate greed and overconfidence will still be key flaws in western culture even in the future. Cameron does set up a very futuristic tone that flows across a rather bland dystopia (just as Scott did in his own way in Alien). It's not as if either director made the film seem set like today, they simply didn't portray humanity as having progressed much beyond our reliance on technology and bravado....

reply

[–] TheSmashingTesticles 8 years ago

Would you date a black girl?

reply