MovieChat Forums > AndyAce83 > Replies
AndyAce83's Replies
7/10
Underrated and hated because of groupthink.
I am done now.
Happy new year :-)
I think Aliens (1986) turned the epic strange aliens into ants that threat lied in NUMBERS not in it being a "perfect organism". Basically bugs.
But I did like the characters in that movie. But it turned the aliens into cockroaches that sometimes have acid for blood when the plot needs it.
You know I am getting tired of having to defend this movie to someone who cant fill in the blanks himself out of LACK OF IMAGINATION.
But fine.
1) Could be from the lab they were in earlier in Aliens (not sure if it was stated that the two facehuggers who got let lose were the ONLY ones who lived or not) / you dont know how much time he had or where he was while Ripley was down with the queen looking for Newt. Hitch was passed out if I remember correctly.
2) Maybe she did and didnt find any. But there is a paradox. You seem to think its farfetched that there WERE eggs on the Sulaco. Why would she then think it would NOT be farfetched?
3) I agree.. But the point is that you as an audiencemember sometimes can FILL IN THE BLANKS.
To me it looked like food and not egg food. Like mold or something. It seemed it grew out of that red swamp thing.
War of the World has something simlar in some red weed (from the book).
1) Bishop brought more than one egg on board
2) The Queen lay more than one egg on board.
3) Unknown mysterybox aka does the entire movies hang on this issue?
You talk of the dog. Does that mean you havent seen the assembly cut?
Here is a picture of the facehugger in the assembly cut.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LV426/comments/16xyd3x/in_the_assembly_cut_we_see_the_royal_facehugger/
Again:
1) It could be more than one facehugger. Bishop or the queen may have brought / layed more than one. or...
2) The queen facehugger can lay more than one embryo.
"And don’t give my any of that “super facehugger” crap because that explanation still doesn’t work."
- Well I have to add that one, because its clear that the facehugger in Alien 3 Assembly cut has a different, bigger type and its seems that its stated that a super facehugger has a queen and a protector.
But fine: Here are other possible solutions:
1) there were more than one egg on Sulaco. One egg, or many eggs. Why not.
2) If you dont suspect eggs on the Sulaco, why should Ripley
3) Could be hidden by the queen (we dont know her intelligence)
4) Could have been hidden by Bishop (we do not know his allegiance)
I dont know how escape pods work in Alien, but its clear form the very first alien movie (landing sequence) that spacetravel is dangerous and uncomfortable. Its industrial and rough.
"But don't worry: Cinema History has a way of avenging films such as this one (or The Thing, or Blade Runner, or Miami Vice...) that are almost universally disliked and performed poorly on release, and are reevaluated decades later, once the consensual thinking fades out and the critical analysis has been performed. And in the case of Alien3, one can sesee the reappraisal work is well under way."
I agree. I wonder if Joker 2 will get that treatment. Its not the greatest piece of cinema I watched, but it did NOT deserve all that hate either.
Yes. Although the xenomorph has been a cancer metaphor in other Alien franchies instalments as well its never more clear than in this movie. She coughs, and are weak. She loses her hair (although not because of the parasite), nosebleeds and that x-ray scene.
Yes. Its a great autospy scene. But what about the cremation scene?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vSYMrVZdcw
I am glad I am not alone in appreciating this movie :-)
I think its time for another emoji 🙄
🙄🙄🙄🙄
🙄
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
I go on moviechat for the best art debates 🙄
How about you explain why?
Is it the "big guns kille space ants" narrative you love so much that it pawns Alien3? Or are you a great Alien Resurrection fan?
"Most frequent explanation I've seen is that viewers didn't take well to Newt and Hicks, characters they got attached to in Aliens, be disposed of so unceremoniously"
Yeah, and I find it so annoying, because that is the NORM now. The "everyone can die" - trophe has been done to death now on TV-shows like a Game of Thrones etc. And "everybody" seems to love that show. Its DARK and GRITTY and REAL.
But in Alien3 its just "bad". And I will object on that point with a passion. Because in the average modern nihilistic show where "everyone can die" show or movie the deaths are usually "unceremoniously". They are killed and then the shock lingers for a short while before the show/movie moves along and forgets the character all toghether and the death doesnt really affect anything.
But in Alien3, the deaths LINGER. Especially Newts. Hicks death seems to be sidelined somewhat. Ripley seems to get over that somewhat quick... or not... But her short love affair with the doctor COULD imply that, or it could be a complex psychological statement of desperate longing for something after dark life experiences. But the ENTIRE movie is about the death of Newt and dying herself.
"Another explanantion is some of the poor special effects on the creature throughout the film."
Yeah, shallow people will focus on that ;-) Like saying The Exorcist is bad because of the head turning scene.
"There's also the argument that the film is too bleak."
It is bleak. But that is what I like about it. A nice dark ending for the Ripley story (yeah, then came Alien Ressurection...)
"No imagination. If an 8 tons creature can attached itself to a shuttle, stand right behind you and remain unnoticed until it rips you apart as it does in Aliens, then surely it's not too much to demand we accept there were two facehuggers onboard the pod in Alien3."
Totally agree. I also like the Bishop theory that he took them aboard because he really is a Weyaln-yutani property.
Its funny. Its just a movie. But I still get irritated, borderline angry when reading "Unlike Ripley “magically” being impregnated." Because its so stupid to say. Its like you dont understand anything.
At the credit ends in Aliens you can hear a SFX of an egg opening. Is it a joke? Or is it suppose to be a hint of a third movie? Who know. But in Alien3 its still explained what happned. You see an alien egg being on the Sulaco. It opens and then attacks one of the beds. It seems to start with Newt but regrets it and goes for Ripley instead.
Its not magically. Then for 2/3 of the movie Ripley complains about her throat which is suppose to be a hint of her being the one who had the facehuggger. What is MAGICAL about it? Nothing at all.
Again, its already established in Aliens that an egg may be on the solaco. Why? The queen was on the ship. Also Bishops allianses has always been in question (he was an Weyland-Yutani property).
"Fincher is a bit of a hack"- The guy who gave us Seven, Fight Club, Gone Girl... is a hack?
"the complete lack of suspense"... It has plenty of suspense, but a stronger emotion is in this movie. Sorrow. It captures SORROW better than suspense. But there are plenty of suspense as well.
"the script is still full of plot holes and doesn’t make any sense"
Like in the first movie when Ripley goes after the cat? Or the second one where the shoot aliens point blank and doesnt get acid on them? Oh, right. Those are masterworks. They dont have plotholes. Such hubris. WHAT PLOTHOLES?
"Sigourney weaver just had way too much influence with it."
Ive heard the producers medling, but I´ve never heard Fincher complain about Weaver.
Its a great movie. Better than the second one. All movies have flaws. This ones greatness outweigh that.
But why all the hate? That is what I dont get.
The collective hate some movies get. Its loudmouth opinions exclaimed as TRUTH because many says its so.
Its annoying.
It has a great mood. Not boring, but slow paced. A feel of loss, emptyness. You can feel sorrow of lost loved ones. etc.
Yes. Especially at that point in time.
1. The Thing acts VERY different. - It was supposed to adapt from prequel to original. Its behaviour changed as it learned.
As for the rest I didnt notice, so I have no answer.