MovieChat Forums > sati_84 > Replies
sati_84's Replies
The Vander-Silco falling out might be what we see at the very first scene in S1, namely, Silco wanted to go on an all-out war against Piltover, while Vander did not. The horrible consequences shown are exactly what was driving Vander to take revenge for all the lives lost, and why he felt obligated to get Powder and Vi under his wings.
I mean there could be something else, since it is not specified, but I think it would fit the timeframes nicely, and for the writers, there is no reason to think up something else - especially now that both V and S are dead... So I think it is implied that it is that, but we'll never know for sure. I see a really small chance this will be explored further in S2, provided no one alive can tell the tale.
OK, then let me defend ONE scene from T2 - the T-1000 glitching at the end, grabbing the guardrail, then snapping back to normal. By 1991 standards, it's another amazing technical achievement, how they got the guardrail's texture just right, and this bit adds to the audience's understanding, that the villaing could not 100% bounce back from getting frozen, then blown to a million pieces. It nicely ties into how "Sarah's" legs are glitching into the floor... and I think seeing that is also better if you see the guardrail bit first.
The other extra scenes, I can let go - Reese in the dream, the T-1000 figuring out the name of the dog, the smile, turning on the learning chip (although I think that one is also integral to the plot, and explains how the Terminator understands why people cry for instance), but I would die on the hill of the T-1000 glitching scene :-)
1. Rook (the android character resembling Ash from the first movie) successfully synthetized the black goo like compound, and he could use that to "3D print" facehuggers and he put them to storage for later use or something... It was not clear in the movie, that if he thought he already found the key to immortality and invulnerability in the black goo, why would he need the huggers, maybe to synthetize further goo from them later? Anyways it was not clear why, only that he created them from the "DNA" of the Nostromo alien.
2. Rain, when parting with Kay said "here, take this" - that was the "vaccine" sample Rook created from the black goo to provide immortality, etc. In fact it was mixing the alien "DNA" with the host DNA and created hybrids - but Rook didn't know that, he did not have enough time to experiment before ripped in half by the alien. However, Kay's impression and Rain's wording confused her - she had horrible injuries, so she figured she would take it to heal up, but it backfired, as it merged alien "DNA" with her fetus, created a hybrid, then accelerated its growth... and we all saw the rest. But it was because she injected herself with the black goo which tragically was known to Rain that it is not safe, but Kay didn't get the message...
3. This has been a question on the original alien boards as well - the rate of growth shown in this movie is even more unbelievable than the first movie, but the point is - we don't know, since the creature is alien for us.
And with point #3, you touched on an important point: the fast growth was conjured up by the first movie as a way to have a threat relatively soon into the movie, and it was a huge stretch, but believable if you wanted to. But the way they invent characters who are studying the aliens, it is getting more and more absurd that for example Rook is able to synthetize a "vaccine" from the black goo, before mapping out all physiological functions of the aliens...
I don't think there is evidence of this anywhere in the movie.
The Thing most likely needs cellular activity to devour and imitate a being (dog, human, etc.) - there is no indication of it doing it to corpses.
It doesn't really matter either way, because the Outpost 31 crew incinerates all the dogs and all the corpses for good measure anyways, so there is no way a Thing could have survived as a corpse - IMO.
You can read it that way, but I have two issues with this interpretation:
1. You ask if "this was Carpenter's way of subtly implying..." - well, in the commentary, both Carpeneter and Russell say that the ending is deliberately ambiguous. Their intent is unmistakably of creating vagueness as to who is who. Russell at one point says he believes MacReady to be human, but then Carpenter says that he still might be a Thing... so ambiguity is the intent of the creators here. Russell is leaning towards Mac being human, and I myself think it makes no sense for him to blow up the Blair-thing if he is the thing. There is no other hints of direct infighting between the Things in the movie anyways.
2. In-universe - suppose you are right - but how would Mac know in universe for sure that Childs is a Thing? What clues him in? Can you support it with anything - other than the fact that Childs was off to the side for quite a while and anything could have happened - but that doesn't prove it one way or the other. We are privy to all the information MacReady has, and that's not much. So if he only offers drinks to Things (which is in itself a stretch, since he offered his drink to Blair in the shed in a moment when Blair was - almost certainly - human), what makes him so sure Childs is one? You need to fill in this gap first, before we can evaluate your theory.
We are in 100% subjective territory now, but since the scenes are good and valuable, T2 cannot be "too long" for me, it is an experience, not "just a movie" :-)
I remember being disappointed by the Aliens additional scenes - more is not always better though.
Deabatable. For Terminator 2, I think the Special Edition has extra scenes that are valuable for plot and characterization and extremely well executed as well. So I am gladly watching the SE for T2, and there might be more examples...
Very quickly I looked up some articles, and found this:
<i>Giger painted a biomechanical landscape of strange shapes formed out of twisted metal and bone. “I wanted the landscape of the planet to be biomechanic,” said Giger, “a mixture of our technology and some kind of magma, so as to create the feeling that maybe something has happened before on that planet, maybe a technical civilisation has been destroyed.”</i>
Source: https://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/the-alien-planet/
So the artificial, technological origins of the alien were intended right from the start. During production, the idea of the alien being a weapon used by the Space Jockeys is floated numerous times.
Also, this statement from Ridley Scott is very telling:
<i>The purpose of the derelict craft is left a mystery in the film. “I was amazed that no one asked me about this mysterious element of the film,” Scott said to French magazine L’Ecran Fantastique in 2012, “but if you would have asked me in 1978, I would have gladly explained that, in my mind, all this alien ship could be was a battleship.”</i>
Soruce: https://alienseries.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/the-derelictpyramidsilo/
So yes, the idea of the alien being artificial, manufactured, a bioweapon in itself - was present throughout the making of the film.
Also, with this in mind, Cameron's idea for Burke to acquire aliens for "the bioweapon division" gets a weird meta layer. Burke is thinking about how the alien's acid, or other bodyparts could be used to create weapons. But the alien itself is already a bioweapon... Bizarre :-)
The inner jaw is a great piece of biomechanical design. It is "on rails" because that is the mechanical part of the design.
You can dislike it, don't get me wrong, but there is a clear artistic intention behind how it looks and why it looks like that. In the movie, we cannot decide if the alien is a product of natural or artificial activity. And that duplicity is part of the design. It is dubbed "biomechanical", and it is a unique artstyle, that convinced Scott, O'Bannon and co. to hire Giger to craft the alien.
The mechanical mouth and the whole skull was built by Carlo Rambaldi, who is a pro in animatronics, and together with Giger, Scott and all others involved, they were all satisfied with the end result, the way the mouth moves, etc. So there is no doubt that the "on rails" nature of the movement is intended. Moreover, it is clearly offset by the vast amounts of saliva we see, which is clearly a very organic thing to include, further emphasizing the dual nature of the alien.
Well, there are two types of "makes sense".
One is the most common way of using this phrase - rational sense.
But the other is intuitive sense. When you cannot dissect the thing you are taking about, and don't understand it rationally, but it "feels right" in the sense that you have a high level understanding of it.
The alien's design is the latter. And I think you interpreted my comment from a rational standpoint, rather than an intuitive one. And I have the proof as well, as you earlier said in your OP: <i>"And what about the big smokestacks on his back?"</i>
This question is very telling. It clearly shows that you encountered something weird, something alien, and you have a need for understadning, more precisely rational understanding. So you are trying to make rationals sense of it, you are trying to compare the protrusions to something that is familiar and known to you (smokestacks).
Even from that standpoint however, I fail to see how one would consider the statement that the alien's design makes sense as "comedic". As a design of an organism - be it artificial or natural - it makes sense. When it comes to artistic intention, the protrusions are not just randomly thrown there, Giger had something in mind when he added those. We don't know what exact function does it serve? Well, that's unfortunate if you want to 100% understand everything about the alien, but the point of the movie is that the alien is alien. The artistic intention of the whole movie and the design itself is that we don't know, we cannot know everything about how it works. And that adds to the atmosphere, the creepiness, the cosmic horror.
There is nothing wrong with the need to understand everything rationally - it is after all, human nature. But this is one of the main messages of Alien: we (humanity) can often find ourselves in situations where we don't have all the information, where we don't have the chance to get the full picture. And we must cope with that somehow...
In the movie, we barely have any information on the Alien's physiology and biology. Especially the adult alien, as it obviously is really hard to study.
In the extended lore, there are two explanations for those protrusions. One is that the alien breathes through them - kinda boring explanation. The other is: the alien secretes spider silk like substance through those, which allow it to stick to surfaces like a spider, and this might be the same substance it uses to cocoon its victims.
I myself subscribe to the latter explanation, but I am fine with having no explanation at all - because the title is "alien" so it is perfectly OK if we don't know all the details about how the monster works - it is still effective.
As fot the design: the "pipes" on its back are an upgrade, makes the design even more alien and biomechanical. It is something strange, something not immediately obvious what it is for. We see the "hands" and "feet" of the alien and we are like "yeah, it is walking, grabbing things, etc." - we have something to go on to make sense of those appendices. With the pipes, we don't have anything to go on, and that makes this effective. And it makes it effective, because the alien's design as a whole makes sense. We just don't know how ALL the parts work - and that's part of the intrigue, the mystery, the beauty of it.
Good point! When I first saw this movie, I always thought Bossk is standing on the edge to allow the shot of the imperial officer looking up at him, thus presenting him as a menacing presence. The shot of the officer looking up provides an interesting juxtaposition, a meeting of two worlds.
On one hand, you have the world of the imperial officer which is grey, dull, strict and regulated. He has his uniform and protocols he must follow. On the other hand you have the freedom of the bounty hunter. Bossk answers to no one, does not need a uniform, does not abide to any protocols, and can waltz in to anywhere - even to an Imperial Star Destroyer - with his bare feet. The shot is way more effective with his feet in the shot when the officer looks up at him.
This, and one other thing: remember, we did not see all of Obi-Wan's teachings, we did not see the whole trip to Alderaan in real time. Who knows what else he might have taught (or passingly mentioned) to Luke about the Force.
I was always comfortable with the explanation that it happened offscreen in ANH when Ben mentioned it or demonstrated Force Telekinesis to Luke. But of course even if he didn't it is very logical for him to try in that situation, so yes, he can figure this out on his own after Obi-Wan laying a strong foundation for him to tune in with the Force.
About the food locker - I did not get the impression of an earlier raid, but it's been a while since I read that book.
I'll try to look for some concrete evidence of that, but even if there isn't - you do you, it's a minor point anyways.
I don't really care about M:I (however I might need a rewatch of the first few films in that series...), but read through your post, and it is spot on in wording what I myself always think about teams & crews in films and series.
I always go for the feeling of "They are real people" VS "Everything and everyone exists only for the plot".
In this sense: Firefly VS Star Trek Discovery is an interesting juxtaposition for me. In Firefly, I can picture the crew's "normal days". We get enough information and characterization for each crewmember to see what they are interested in, what they want, what they feel, etc. So when they are not involved in a crazy adventure, they still feel like people with actual, very well formed personalities (see the cold opens of the show - that ballgame opening, the various discussions on things outside the plot, etc.)
Compare and contrast: in Star Trek: Discovery, we get none of the fine-tuned characterization of Firefly. The crew of the Discovery are mainly officers and they are mainly defined by what they do, not who they are. We get very little information about even the main character for her to rise above this. "These people like to explore new planets, but MY GOD, what do they do when there is no plot?" was my constant thought in the back of my head. I don't like shows where entire characters are only showing up for one purpose to serve in the plot, and we get no information on their worldviews, ideology, etc. So yes, we need to see scenes about "how horrible the coffee is" to get proper characterization on all characters - that's my view.
Forgot to react to your comment about how the OT is building on each entry, whereas the PT and ST are really bad at consistency...
It's a curious and baffling situation - we have three trilogies here, three set of three films, and
- The OT is consistently building the plot movie after movie, keeping the big picture in mind
- The PT tries to do this, but fails, as the entries are not as cohesive, not as connected to each other.
- The ST doesn't even try to do this, as its entries are actively working against each other, due to some "subverting the expectations" BS, in which the director of each new entry tries to one up the previous guy, while winking at the audience - "You thought X was the case? No, it's actually Y! Got ya!!!"
Baffling to see this unfold with the largest movie (and other media) franchise on Earth that the result of this childish tug of war was actually presented to us, the viewers as the canon Sequel Trilogy...
<i>Plenty of people have pointed out that starting with AOTC leaves out no story from TPM that is required to understand it. As you've just pointed out, RotS builds on material that isn't present. It might build on AOTC, but it's actually not the direct sequel. The ST is even worse where each new entry almost gleefully jettisons the previous film's main points.</i>
As I'm sure you remember, I'm one of those people. Leaving out TPM, and starting the story when Anakin is around 19 would have been the right decision that would have allowed us to
- See more of Obi-Wan's training methods, and the situations they find themselves in together
- Understand the mindset of Anakin - his conflicts with the Jedi Council, Yoda, his relationship with Padme and how the other Jedi are frowning upon that, etc.
- Go into more details regarding the politics of the Clone Wars. This scenario would be salvageable, if we knew what exactly is the ideology these many fractions (separatists) are subscribing to. Because it is essential that getting rid of the Republic is not and end, it's just a stepping stone towards something new. But all of these fractions somehow see eye to eye on a really complex issue - what should come after the Republic? This is way, way more intriguing than what we got in the films, and seeing this process of how Palpy manipulates them towards this goal of building the Empire, would show us how he is a master manipulator, hiding his sinister intentions from absolutely all of his contacts.
- Go into more details on how the Jedi Council thinks - I refuse to believe they are that stupid as they are depicted. Maybe include some suspicion towards Palpatine from Yoda, Windu, etc? The novelization of RotS tries this, and goes into more detail on Dooku's motivation, etc., all of which I was shaking my head that Lucas did not put in the effort to include (or at least something similar to what Matther Stover, the author came up with).
I could go on :-)
Neat points you bring up there:
<i>Dallas suggests removing the creature and Ash replies, "We don't know what ( he pauses) it is."</i>
Great catch, as I think he meant to say "we don't know what it is doing to him" - but he wanted to avoid Dallas getting a clue about "something" being "done" to Kane!
<i>I suppose I just have a suspicious nature! I'd wonder why a hostile creature would attack a person's face rather than another body part and still keep the person alive.</i>
I'm sure as a viewer of this scene (on a screen) Dallas would also be suspicious. But suspicion requires distance. He was up close and stayed close to Kane and his situation. Parker, viewing their attempts to remove the hugger throug a glass, is able to suggest something (freeze him), but Dallas is too close, too involved. He is not able to think about this, seeing the big picture. Also, you need to be in the right state of mind, and relatively calm emotions. But the horror is too strong, especially after they remove the helmet, and see the hugger in all its glory, "sitting" on Kane's face. It's so horrible a sight, it stops rational thought in its tracks for Dallas.
Also, Ash is masterfully creating a situation around this, where he is in control of what information is revealed, and what are the exact things the crew is allowed to think about. He clearly avoids talking about anything the alien is "doing" to Kane, he steers the discussion towards the purely descriptive, and the methods of removal - and nothing else. Weird for a science officer, who should be really curious about alien lifeforms, but hey - Ash doesn't have emotions, but figures out on the go, how to manipulate the humans and their emotions in order to reach his goal of protecting the alien.
Many-many rational and emotional layers - again, the filmmakers depicted this brilliantly, can't praise this movie enough...
Absolutely agreed on all counts - I'm not defending Dallas' decision(s) - I'm explaining it, in a descriptive way, not judging it one way or the other.
The intention of the filmmakers is clear here, and of course if you want to go there, you can criticize Dallas' decision: from a purely textbook leadership point of view, it was wrong. But this is happening to humans, and what happened to Kane is so horrifying, that I personally can understand his decision there.
Ultimately it is not about if he was right or wrong though. It is about the filmmakers presenting a scenario which has many layers, and understandable for the viewer. And in this they did an excellent job - as I'm sure we agree :-)
Absolutely agreed, and here I would add one more thing that annoyed me about R1 - the characters lacked interaction.
Setting up a ragtag bunch is a huge task for the writers. All of them are coming from different backgrounds, some of them believe in the rebellion, some of them only partly. Some of them are sarcastic or burnt out, some of them are idealistic, etc. So they need to interact and work together. They will have differences in their approach, behavior, etc. that means conflict, that they need to resolve for effectively working together.
And we get NONE of that in the movie. There are even characters that don't say A WORD to each other. It's a real shame especially considering that Andor was masterfully characterized in his series that we got nothing in R1 about his philosophy, his worldview, and how it clashes (or might clash) with the view of other characters. Jyn seemed like a flatline (very fitting description) since she also did not have any conflicts with anyone inside the team. The robot seemed to be the only character they bothered to actually characterize - Alan Tudyk was utilized well enough - but it really really lacked that brilliant "characters are playing off of each other" vibe of Firefly (speaking of Alan Tudyk), and that was really sad to see. I didn't expect Firefly level dialogue, but we did not even get a tenth of that. We did not really get the sense of the writers even being aware of the fact that the characters should... you know... talk to each other.