MovieChat Forums > Starman > Replies
Starman's Replies
Versons released at the theatre are always preferred for me as they do come through the divine timing and order, in other words it is not a product of an ego, that is why we have people and circumstances come to us to restrict us or teach us, through these limitations come real miracles. Many people have not transcended ego enough not to attract any restrictions, that is why what gets released is meant to be, that's just my perspective on it.
But sometimes I am curious about director's cut too, however it is not something that is meant to happen more, it just doesn't come through these filters that allow the film to be seen by wider audience at a theatre and allows me to feel the social climate within which the film was made in that original form. TC of Blade Runner allows me to feel the year 1982 a lot more, DC doesn't, it would have never been released that year in that particular form.
Anytime producers come in to interefere turns out to be a work of collaboration, and at the end of the day the director is always collaborating anyway, they're not in control of everything, all circumstances, you can't control the unwanted weather or accidents during the shoot, just like any intereferences from the studio during its making. Director's job very often also includes the compromising and measuring of how far they can go or what the audience is ready for. There are many factors, and perhaps if you go too far as a director, studios can take it away from you. Director's cut basically overrides all that.
There's only one DC version that I tend to watch or remember more often, that is Alexander: Revisited (2004). Maybe also the 2000's cut for Pat Garret and Billy The Kid from Peckinpah is better, I just don't remember the original one though. What can bother me more is the censoring of the released film, so seeking out and seeing the original uncut form turns out to be always better experience.
And also one has to consider that genetics do change over a couple of generations, our genes are constantly affected and changed throughout lifetimes, especially when you go water fasting or reprogramming of consciousness. When you do research the intelligence of mankind itself has been recorded to be different than just a few decades ago, the same goes for our DNA as well of course, we've been going through constant upgrades throughout lifetimes, and our body structure is being constantly affected as well as masculine and feminine energies. There are more masculine women than men in proportion than anytime in known history which many people are aware of and the world cinema is merely reflecting that, not just Hollywood. So yes the film is showing one timeline of our future on a 3D level, merely in a symbolic way.
Genetics of gender have dramatically changed over decades, a lot more women are more masculine than men in general. Visually it doesn't show the future, however symbolically it is painting a more accurate picture.
T2 is a case of the 90's when sequels had to be made to make as much money as possible. Eventually when money becomes less of an issue, there might come a sequel to Terminator that doesn't cast Arnold or makes a replica of his whole body, but goes deeper into Sarah's psychological state of being after the first film. Yes movies are bound to employ technology that uses old actors as young far more regularly and with 100% accuracy and believability. It might be a completely different type of film than any Terminator film, perhaps not even a action horror film, but that would be a sequel that honors authenticity instead of the expectations of more of the same.
In my own view I would say rarely any human being is as much authentic as as in the older age, what I mean by authenticity is the greater discovery of who we really are, hence my viewpoint on his early films, he may have had lots of freedom what he wanted to do though, my view is that most of us don't tend to see the greater picture of our life or have as much freedom in our directions as in the later life, we're growing, first from the clutches of the parents or society, constantly reaching out for that greater freedom and truth. If he was 100% free in his choices, why would the market dictate what projects to do, otherwise for instance he would have been doing westerns as he wanted, that itself is a compromise, including being dictated by the trends (genres or styles) of the era we're in. I see authenticity as an ability to distance ourselves from such influences. The more we're true to ourselves, the less we become popular among most people. I always saw Carpenter as one of the most authentic artists out there, however much more so in his later life. That is all what I mean basically.
Walking The Edge
The Whole Truth and Village Of The Damned
It's far scarier, that's why I prefer the original film, similar film in style, but less scary. I saw this sequel as a child, it's frightening mainly because Myers looks and feels more inhuman and out of this world. The energy behind this film is so frightening that it could be dangerous, creating some havoc in my life if I let this film inside of me too much.
OP well said. It might be difficult for some people to understand how people who were not kids saw this film in 82. The characters in the film seem to serve just to push the story torward one thrill after another.
It's one of his best films, but I certainly don't think Carpenter himself was in a very healthy state of mind when he made the film, there's something very mechanical and inhuman about the approach towards the characters, very unlike what filmmakers have been doing till that time, whether it was monster films like The Curse of Frankenstein, Godzilla or The Exorcist, Burnt Offerings, Night Of The Living Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Scanners or Alien, there was always a sense of identification and empathy on the part of a filmmaker. I believe that's one of the main reasons people couldn't connect to the film as much, besides the younger audience who love the spectacle and thrill. I heard that afterwards he needed visits to a psychologist to change his outlook on life and the way he lived at that point, and since then his films seem to have become lighter in tone. I always strongly felt that Carpenter sort of redeemed himself with Starman in 84 and Ghosts Of Mars in 2001, both serving in a way as a personal apology for the way The Thing was received, he used a similar scenario, but focused on the characters and themes more than in his early films, especially The Thing or Assault On Presinct 13.
Escape From L.A. itself is like a commentary on the society that puts more value on how things look (that includes the plastic surgery scene), who focus more on the effects and realism instead of the characters and feeling of the film, his later films in general felt more whole and cerebral by focusing on depth of themes, characters, their backgrounds and traits rather than a visceral impact which perhaps made those films less scary and less mainstream, there comes the natural realization that to be more authentic and true to ourselves we would have to sacrifice our ambitions to appeal to more people. Which I believe happens to lots of filmmakers in later age when they have nothing to prove and instead focus on what they really want, their authenticity starts coming out, early on many of us compromise just to make it in life, that's natural.
By the way I find it interesting that each adaptation of Who Goes There has been made almost every 30 years.
Perfect example of how sequels should be, who says that they are meant to continue the same story in the same universe. there are quite a few sequels made that seem like in a different universe. This was an amazing experience for me at the theatre back in 1991, in the way how completely unpredictable it was in the direction of the story, totally different alternative reality. I can see how this film might find a lot more fans in the future, as the sequels progress employing more alternative realities.
There goes the saying the more we know the less we feel. First film has the most mystery obviously, offers so much more space for imagination.
What comes first, mutated alien or egg? Here's one idea to entertain, I see the egg as the developing organism itself resembling more of a plant created by various cells in the planet's resilient and self sufficient eco-system that demanded for the orgamism to evolve into its present state of an egg producing these small creatures, all for its own survival. These creatures say a lot about what kind of a planet that was.
Nothing kills the mystery more than Scott's concepts that behind it all stood humans and AI, it is a genius idea itself, for the purpose of somehow continuing the story of Aliens, absolutely amazing that it could evolve this wa when we think about it, cause the first Alien was empty of any explanations, and the focus was on other things in this series, and I feel that idea is based on well known beliefs that the mankind is a hybrid race itself created by Annunaki civilization that experimented with our DNA, so Ridley Scott went further ahead by assuming aliens are also created by humans, or AI, even though humans created AI, so the whole message of the Alien saga as a whole ends up being about humans' responsibility for what we create.
I don't suscribe to the notion of how they were created according to Ridley Scott's concepts for the last two films, like any animal or species in existence, it is a product of evolution, and each animal always seems to correspond to the evolvement of the mankind and what it requires for survival or guidance. Alien had to be a product of an eco-system that requires 1000 times more resilience and protection than that on Earth, that means the substances like he amount of acid the creature could produce had to be a lot more common on the planet and in increased doses, the consciousness that created such life spread around on its planet had to very predatory, far far more than anytime in Earth's known history. Alien film can present very real scenario though, it is all perfectly possible such a creature does exist in the universe, or existed at one time.
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).
Riot 1969
If what I am saying is true, the audience can actually be more free to see the bigger picture of what David is doing, provided the audience doesn't watch movies mainly to identify with someone, but to learn and observe, but also see movies more symbolically than literally, if so then one would not have to find any genocidal wave on part of David, and even if so, it doesn't mean it is wrong, in the movie it would be just part of evolution, he destroys for his beliefs in the greater good, the same like any other human, as a viewer I am not self-righteous, I could feel for him in the way he is and was created, whatever he does, I know any downfall leads to more evolution and upheaval, up and down, up and down. The greater point of the film would be to see our social fear put upon the artifical intelligence, or even the eroding trust in humans itself, or any conscious intelligence whatsoever. The film is crucially important in my view, as a paradigm changing genre film, as a symbolic mirror, as a social commentary. I'm sure R.Scott is a very smart man, and knew what he was trying to say with this.
There is indeed a much more cerebral ending than in any other Alien film preceding it, I think it just happens to latch onto the Alien fans, thrill junkies, who either expect more of the same or are incompatible kind of audience for this kind of a film. It has a very bleak horrifying ending, no more to me than smiling Norman Bates at the end of Psycho, or Dr.Miles warning us of the aliens among us in Body Snatches or Texas Chainsaw Massacre with the lady on the van screaming and laughing with the purity of embodied madness. And yet the film is not as cold and inhuman when it comes to focus on human qualities of love and compassion as The Thing. Isn't the purpose of such films to feel the fear of uncertainty? The question at the end of Alien Covenant is what kind of uncertainty it is here? What is behind it? What does it say, why and what do I fear, isn't it my fear of death or lack of trust in authority, the control?
This might be actually the first Alien film that seems to resemble the bleak times of the social upheaval of the early 70's. There is a probability that Mr.Scott might have used this ending as his own view of response towards Trump's presidency, and how so many people see him. The same kind of fear might have been raised all around it, lack of trust, fear of death, etc.
The ending to this film is what made this for me historically one of the most important films made in Hollywood in recent years, for it reminds me how much in movies there are no bad guys or good guys, only heroes in a story (not anti-heroes, as that limits the depth of characters by our own set of values), who do things we would do or not do, and as a viewer I am supposed to integrate and embrace that side of David as a character, not judge it or eradicate it by the desire to have him defeated or dead, this used to be very much part of the Hollywood cinema of the late 60's and especially the European and Asian cinema to this day, practically in any genre, where characters are not defined as good or bad (as can be often indicative of the destructive western mentality), but as real people with many grey areas. Not flawed, only human. Audience only observe such characters to come up with their own ideas of what it is reflecting in a society. David for me presents a commentary on the rising of a new species on Earth, the change of the perceived history, and people becoming more whole in their awareness. Ridley Scott has a very refined European sensibility, he's never seemed to enforce the clear Tom & Jerry lines of good and bad in his films. Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise and Conquest of Paradise are indicative enough of where he is often coming from in his work.
90's was among the first decades that started blending horror with other genres in the mainstream, proobably the best 90's horror film could be Terminator 2. Probably among the most famous examples, that's how horror genre changed since the 90's. The same for comedies or sci-fi, genres started expanding by mixing in other genres.
I would also add more strict classic films of the horror genre in the 90's:
The Pit and the Pendulum
Graveyard Shift
The Sect
Dr.Giggles
Children Of The Corn 2
Spontaneous Combustion
The Witches
There's more people with PTSD from their childhood than from wars, about 95% of world population without even realizing it. PTSD has also far deeper impact on a child's psychology than on an adult's. As it has been pointed out above, it is the extreme minority that have PTSD from war experiences, and usually in those cases people find out that their trauima stems from their childhood as well and contributed to the reason or reality they went to war in the first place.