MovieChat Forums > Aliens (1986) Discussion > Why Hollywood stopped making films like ...

Why Hollywood stopped making films like 'Aliens' (link to article):

posted 8 years ago by gogoschka-1
35 replies | jump to latest

I had been wondering for some time why pretty much all of the big budget studio tentpoles have stopped to provide a thrilling experience for me. For a while I thought: Well, I’m just getting old; I’m becoming more and more cynical and I’m also not as easily excitable anymore as I used to be. In a word, I’m turning into the typical grumpy old geezer who complains how everything used to be so much better in the past and that we don't get gritty, thrilling action films like 'Aliens' anymore.

But, being a film geek, through reading and watching hundreds of interviews over the years with studio heads, directors, producers and screenwriters as well as watching making-ofs and documentaries and reading countless articles about all things Hollywood, a very clear picture started to emerge, as to why so many of those blockbusters have become so formulaic - and that in fact we DON'T GET films like 'Aliens' anymore: for very specific reasons.

If you're interested in those topics, you can read it here for yourself (but be warned: it's a lengthy read and it could make you angry):

http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html

"The complication had a little complication."

[–] bruce-129 8 years ago

Personally, I feel this is due to the stupidization of all media. They do not want
to do anything in media that has any value as far as teaching anything real to anyone,
provoking people to think strategically or logically ... they are using movies to model
STUPID for the population.

Then they get celebrites and announcers to talk about how great these movies are
because if isolate citizens here the same information from different, what they think
are unconnected sources, their subconscious brains are likely to think it is true. People
are taught to look for value in movies, so their whole lives they get a sick warped
idea of value while they watch these movies that are more stupid every year, and more
violent, sexual and confusing. The train people to see different Rorschach themes
so they all have different views on things and cannot agree on anything and are trained
to argue about nonsensical stuff so they will never get together politically to stand
up to the oligarchs, powers that be.

Particularly in Science Fiction, the offering have been about as brain dead and totally
stupid as possible. There are still a few good movies that get through. One I though
was pretty good was "Ex Machina" actually have some challenging themes an ideas
in it, but far from many or most.

People are being manipulated and sensory and intellectually deprived so they grasp
at simple mined programming put before them.

[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Personally, I feel this is due to the stupidization of all media. They do not want to do anything in media that has any value as far as teaching anything real to anyone, provoking people to think strategically or logically ... they are using movies to model STUPID for the population.

You're talking about "social engineering" as a conscious effort to dumb down people. I fear the truth is much simpler than that. Most of us are simple creatures; we have simple needs and like simple pleasures, and we get excited by simple things. But the (news) media as well as the (Hollywood) film industry had historically always been a bit of a magnet for intellectuals and artists (as well as business men/women of course). Due to that, there were always challenging news reports, interesting ideas and artful movies next to the always popular trivia about celebrities and film products full of explosions for mass consumption.

But once the corporations took over all the major studios (and news channels), they did what large corporations always do: take a cold, hard look at what sells best. And what sells best are the trivia about celebrities and explosions and men in capes. As I said: we are simple creatures and easily satisfied. And it's not even that art or art products or challenging ideas and news reports are deemed to fail; on the contrary, they're often very successful, because even simple creatures usually recognise and appreciate quality when they see it. But unlike trivia and explosions, they are much harder and more risky to make, with less guaranteed returns. And to corporations, artists and people driven by passion for ideas instead of money seem unpredictable and irrational: that's not who they like to do business with, because they don't understand their motivation.

So I don't see any conscious efforts to dumb down people by sinister forces who want to control the population; I believe what we're experiencing is more a case of the corporations adhering to a simple creed: "Why take the hard way when the easy way sells best?"

The result, however, is the same as what you described: we are being dumbed down - which does indeed make us more prone to manipulation and more likely to be seduced by demagogues.

http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html

[–] jenkinsdaniel 8 years ago

The failed 1992 sequel Alien 3 reveals the mystery behind what this OP's thread is all about much more efficiently. Apparently, the OP's link is to a very lengthy read, when in fact it can all be summed up in a couple of scenes from Alien 3...

"Do you have any faith, sister?" --a question asked of the movie's star and co-producer. "Not much" is her response in the failed sequel.

Later in the movie, she briefly mentions the first two Alien movies before asking a question that involves people finding God. That question in the failed sequel begins with "What makes you think..."

Anyway, I would call the first two Alien films "lightning in a bottle".

Aliens wasn't the only successful 1986 sequel to be followed by a failed sequel that tried to attack God.

[–] wears-alan 8 years ago

Failed?
No.

If those pen pushers up at city hall don't like it,well, they swivel on this middle digit!

[–] jenkinsdaniel 8 years ago

Alien 3 only sold 8.7 million tickets after its opening weekend.
Aliens sold 20.2 million tickets after its opening weekend.

So, yes, Alien 3 was a failed sequel.

[–] wears-alan 8 years ago

So, yes, Alien 3 was a failed sequel.

No, you're absolutely wrong. Did it perform as well as Aliens? No (big shoes to fill anyway), but that doesn't make it a failure. It simply shows that the Aliens did better at the box office, or it did in the USA. In fact Alien 3 was well received outside of the USA, so hardly a failure.

If those pen pushers up at city hall don't like it,well, they swivel on this middle digit!

[–] jenkinsdaniel 8 years ago

There were expanding overseas markets at the box office between 1986 and 1992.

The domestic box office is the standard for measuring a film's success compared to other movies of the same franchise.

Alien 3's ticket sales after its opening weekend was more than 50% lower than that of Aliens.

The exact same thing happened to Star Trek V when compared to the popular 1986 sequel Star Trek IV, and I don't know of too many people who don't consider Star Trek V to be a failed sequel.

Alien 3 is a forgettable and unpopular film with forgettable characters and performances, laughable special effects, a tired & depressing story, and so much more. Alien 3 is well-qualified to be called a failure. I stand by what I've stated.

[–] wears-alan 8 years ago

You stand by what you have stated?
Most ignorant idiots do!
Bye

[–] jenkinsdaniel 8 years ago

Well, of course I stand by what I've stated. Why wouldn't I? I was able to thoroughly defend what I had said with numerous facts.

Anyway, most ignorant idiots are unable to win arguments the way that I do.

[–] wears-alan 8 years ago

Facts? No. A movies success is not gauged by USA box office alone. That is no different to me saying Alien 3 did better around the globe than Aliens so it must be more successful. Pure fantasy.
Here are the facts.
Alien 3 has a massive plot hole. The movie suffered from horrendous problems throughout its' production and post production. The director has completely disowned the movie. It was not received well in the USA.
Despite all of this the movie was a commercial success.

Anyway, most ignorant idiots are unable to win arguments the way that I do.

No, they just believe they win arguments.
You don't like the movie and I respect that. Each to their own I suppose. But what you are stating as facts is either pure ignorance or out and out lies. This discussion has reached its' end for me. Don't know about you?

If those pen pushers up at city hall don't like it,well, they swivel on this middle digit!

[–] jenkinsdaniel 8 years ago

"I'll be back."

[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

'Alien 3' made almost 160 million worldwide on a budget of 50-55 million while 'Aliens made around the same (131-181 million according to Wiki) but on a much smaller budget. So no matter how badly Alien 3 failed as a film due to its troubled production, it certainly wasn't a financial failure (no Alien film so far has bombed or failed to make its money back).

http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html

[–] kiboshz 8 years ago

Ah, the ramblings of an ignorant bible thumper.

[–] jenkinsdaniel 8 years ago

gogoschka-1 writes about Aliens...

Why Hollywood stopped making films like 'Aliens'

I had been wondering for some time why pretty much all of the big budget studio tentpoles have stopped to provide a thrilling experience for me.

...and that in fact we DON'T GET films like 'Aliens' anymore.

Notice that gogoschka-1 didn't write these things about Alien 3. Alien 3 failed to provide that thrilling experience for folks like gogoschka-1. That was what I was referring to when I said that Alien 3 was a failed sequel, that and the fact that it sold less than half the tickets after its opening weekend than what Aliens sold.

If you're going to go by international box office grosses, then the most recent Star Wars movie was a disappointment because it failed to break the record set by Avatar. But yet so few people consider Jar Jar 7 to be a disappointment, though in fact Jar Jar 1, Jar Jar 2, and Jar Jar 3 were considered disappointments to millions despite their box office success.

[–] jenkinsdaniel 8 years ago

gogoschka-1 writes...

no Alien film so far has bombed or failed to make its money back.

That may be true, but it's also true that the last five Alien movies have FAILED to give us the movie-going experience that the first two Alien movies provided.

The first two Alien movies sold 48.2 million tickets after their opening weekends. The last five Alien movies have only sold 36.3 million tickets after their opening weekends. So I think it's safe to say that the last five Alien movies have FAILED to live up to the first two Alien movies.

[–] jenkinsdaniel 8 years ago

"Despite all of this the movie was a commercial success."

Half-truth. Half-lie.

"Alien 3 has a massive plot hole. The movie suffered from horrendous problems throughout it's production and post-production. The director has completely disowned the movie. It was not received well in the USA."

Well, at least you got a few things right.

Overseas markets had expanded between 1986 and 1992. The domestic box office is the constant variable in the equation and to many box office experts it is the standard for measuring a film's success compared to other movies of the same franchise. Alien 3's ticket sales after its opening weekend was more than 50% lower than that of Aliens here in the USA. So it wasn't just me who didn't like the film.

"But what you are stating as facts is either pure ignorance or out and out lies."

Alien 3 is a forgettable and unpopular film with forgettable characters and performances, laughable special effects, a tired & depressing story, and so much more. Alien 3 is well-qualified to be called a failure.

Nothing I have written is an out-and-out lie. Nor is it pure fantasy.

[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Aliens wasn't the only successful 1986 sequel to be followed by a failed sequel that tried to attack God.

I think what you wrote here sums up everything you really want to say in one neat sentence. You're of course welcome to continue you inner dialogue on this thread (which seems to be a healthy way to find someone who can make sense of what your write here), but as poster wears-alan before me, I'm out. God bless. 👋

http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html

[–] jenkinsdaniel 8 years ago

TICKETS SOLD AFTER OPENING WEEKEND. 1986 SEQUELS.
25.0 million for Star Trek IV:The Voyage Home
20.2 million for Aliens

TICKETS SOLD AFTER OPENING WEEKEND. AFTER 1986.
8.8 million for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
8.7 million for Alien 3

Anyway, it's always a joy winning against people who had thought they had an easy win over me before I dismantled their arguments point by point.

[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Anyway, it's always a joy winning against people who had thought they had an easy win over me

Lol (this is priceless): I'm sure it is The Almighty Herself who gives you the power to "win" those imaginary battles. Please continue.

http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html

[–] jenkinsdaniel 8 years ago

I'm sure you WISH those arguments were imaginary, but I'm afraid they are all real. They occurred within this thread on September 23, 24, and 25 against you, gogoschka-1, and against wears-alan.

Anyway, I thought you said you were out, but I guess you decided to step back into the ring.

[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Anyway, I thought you said you were out, but I guess you decided to step back into the ring.

"Whenever I think I'm out, they pull me back in."

Advice to you: read the original post. The only debate you're winning is the one in your head. But there's nothing wrong with that: it's a healthy thing. Please continue.

http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html

[–] jenkinsdaniel 8 years ago

Advice to you: read your original post and then my initial post titled "It's called lightning in a bottle." My initial post was in direct response to your original post.

But don't stop there, please continue to read the posts written by me, wears-alan, and you. You keep accusing me of having these imaginary debates when all along anyone can see what has taken place since September 23rd. Your lies are adding up. How many times are you going to repeat the same lie?

[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Advice to you: read your original post and then my initial post titled "It's called lightning in a bottle." My initial post was in direct response to your original post.

Lol; ok, I'll engage and provide some badly needed help: the original post invited you to a link to an article. That article is an essay/blog about contemporary tentpole filmmaking. Specifically, it talks about risk averse filmmaking and generic blockbusters as a result of studio's wishes to "design" franchisable products which have to work on a worldwide basis without offending anyone.

The article is about how this kind of filmmaking has become painfully obvious particularly over the last decade, and also how aiming for a PG-13 rating in those blockbusters has impaired the filmmaking process (due to a lack of "unexpectedness" as a direct result of the corporate need to make "safe", "clean" pc films pandering to a mass audience).

The original post was all about inviting interested folks to follow that link and read said article: an invitation you didn't accept (which is perfectly fine, btw; I obviously can't force people to follow links I provide just because I am interested in certain topics).

Your response to the original post (which I'm grateful for, because it made me laugh out loud) was about an R-rated, very much non-mainstream film made 24 years ago:

"The failed 1992 sequel Alien 3 reveals the mystery behind what this OP's thread is all about much more efficiently. Apparently, the OP's link is to a very lengthy read, when in fact it can all be summed up in a couple of scenes from Alien 3...
"Do you have any faith, sister?" --a question asked of the movie's star and co-producer. "Not much" is her response in the failed sequel.

Later in the movie, she briefly mentions the first two Alien movies before asking a question that involves people finding God. That question in the failed sequel begins with "What makes you think..."

Anyway, I would call the first two Alien films "lightning in a bottle".
...Aliens wasn't the only successful 1986 sequel to be followed by a failed sequel that tried to attack God."

Again, thanks for that: it was simply priceless (lol).

When another poster rightfully pointed out how said sequel wasn't exactly a failure by Hollywood standards since it managed - despite its lackluster quality - to almost triple its budget, you stepped on the (imaginary) battlefield in order to "win" over your (what you perceive as) opponents and started an inner dialogue which - although fascinating du to the insights it offered into your psyche - no longer required other posters to participate (hence mine and the other poster's "Auf Wiedersehen").

But now I feel a certain desperation (and paranoia) in your posts:

You keep accusing me of having these imaginary debates when all along anyone can see what has taken place since September 23rd. Your lies are adding up. How many times are you going to repeat the same lie?

Which is why - good Christian that I am - I tried to clear things up for you a little (though I doubt you'll be responsive).

So by all means, please continue your fascinating ramblings if you can't help it. They may not make much sense, but they are very entertaining.

http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html

[–] jenkinsdaniel 8 years ago

Before I begin the process of thoroughly responding to your long-winded response from the other day, I thought I'd clear up one half-truth that you mentioned.

You mentioned Alien 3 nearly tripling its budget. That's only half-true.

Movie studios have to give about half of their box-office revenue back to the theaters. (The money that movie studios get to keep after the theaters' keep is called rentals.)

So, no, Alien 3 didn't nearly triple its budget when looking at the rentals.

Also, there was the cost of the movie's marketing, which is typically not included in the movie's budget.

I didn't want people reading your long response-post being deceived on that point until I'm able to get around to giving a thorough response on all or most of what you have said.

[–] jenkinsdaniel 8 years ago

...you stepped on the (imaginary) battlefield in order to "win" over your (what you perceive as) opponents and started an inner dialogue which - although fascinating due to the insights it offered into your psyche - no longer required other posters to participate (hence mine and the other poster's "Auf Wiedersehen").

If I stepped on an imaginary battlefied to win over my perceived opponents and no longer required other posters to participate, then why did you have to write such a long message? Why have there been so many responses from wears-alan and others at my thread since then? Why does wears-alan insist on getting the last word in if this is true?

Three questions I doubt you'll be able to give clear and direct answers to.

[–] jenkinsdaniel 8 years ago

Wow! Your last post sure was lengthy. One would assume if a person were engaged in an argument with somebody who was having imaginary discussions, then the first person should win rather quickly and efficiently. Something you have failed to do.

You have ignored so much of what I have written. I have ignored very little of what you and wears-alan have written.

It will probably take a few days to gather all the facts of what you have written for me to dismantle so much of what you wrote in your last post. I don't have the time necessary to thoroughly respond during the next two days or so, but I do plan on giving a full response as soon as I can. Hopefully sometime this weekend.

As for now, your denial of the obvious...that we have been in a debate since Friday and your repeating lies over and over is a sign of pure desperation on your part. There is no desperation on my part. You've simply reversed the truth. Yet another lie.

[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago



http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html

[–] jenkinsdaniel 8 years ago

ok, I'll engage and provide some badly needed help...
you...started an inner dialogue which no longer required other posters to participate...
But now I feel a desperation (and paranoia) in your posts...
good Christian that I am...
I tried to clear things up for you a little

Your lengthy post on Sep 26 wasn't the first time you had "engaged" with someone who was having supposedly "imaginary" debates. Not only are you denying that we have engaged in a debate by suggesting that I have stepped onto an imaginary battlefield, but you are also denying that you have denied the fact that you are an opponent and that you had been engaged in a debate for several days. You're denying the denials. Wow! And YOU'RE accusing ME of desperation and paranoia?! How does one respond to such outrageous debating tactics?! And you call yourself a good Christian.

[–] jenkinsdaniel 8 years ago

The original post was all about inviting interested folks to follow that link and read said article: an invitation you didn't accept...Your response to the original post was about an R-rated, very much non-mainstream film made 24 years ago:

It sounds like you're trying to make my response about Alien 3 seem irrelevant to your post about Aliens. That I just picked Alien 3 out of the blue...some random movie from many years ago. In fact, Alien 3 was very relevant to your post about Aliens. Alien 3 efficiently reveals the true source behind the success of Aliens, because (this might come as a shock to you) Alien 3 was the ONE MOVIE that immediately followed Aliens in the same movie franchise. Think about it: no other movie, of all the thousands of movies made since 1986, immediately followed Aliens with its story and characters.

Alien 3 was a sharply different movie than Aliens in that it was a HUGE letdown in 1992 for fans of the first two Alien movies. The fact that the movie was a HUGE letdown to millions and that the movie tried to attack God is not a coincidence. That's the point I was trying to make. Because of Alien 3's theology and that the movie's star and co-producer mentions the first two Alien movies before she asks a question concerning people "who found God", Alien 3 explains the success behind the first two Alien movies. Thus the relevance to my initial post to your thread.

My explanation of "lightning in a bottle" was much, much more efficient than the long-winded explanation found in your "link" that you had invited everybody to read, which you had admitted was a lengthy read in your original post. Four words vs. a lengthy read. That's the difference. Much more efficient. Also, you're denying God the glory behind something good. And you call yourself a good Christian.