MovieChat Forums > Alien (1979) Discussion > The Really Great Thing About Alien The W...

The Really Great Thing About Alien The Week It Came Out in 1979 was...(SPOILERS).

posted 3 years ago by ecarle (14979)
56 replies | jump to latest

..that nobody knew what the "Alien" monster was going to look like.

With "Jaws," the movie poster itself showed us: the monster would be a shark.

With "Psycho," if you read Bosley Crowther's New York Times review(among many others), you would know that the monster was "an old mother who proves adept at creeping up on people with a big knife, drawing considerable blood."

But with Alien, if you read the first reviews on the first weekend(and I did) and saw the movie that weekend(and I did)...you went in really wondering what the heck this monster was going to BE.

And there were surprises there. For awhile, the alien is the crab-octopus-like creature that hugs itself around John Hurt's face.

Then, the alien is about the size of a large rat when it bursts out of Hurt's chest(killing him) and rushes across a table and out of the room(we ALL jumped at the "birth" -- but laughed a little as the little critter ran the hell out of the room.)

Later..when killing next victim Harry Dean Stanton, the alien reveals itself as much bigger now -- human-height-plus -- (what a quick birth-to-growth cycle!) and we are shown its key 1979 "surprise": a set of hydrolic teeth WITHIN its outer teeth, and those hydraulic teeth are powered to fly right out and smash through the victim's forehead. We'd never seen THAT before.

The movie keeps the glimpses of the grown-alien sparing of the movie goes along -- it is seen in full but for less than one second when it kills Tom Skerritt and then is only glimpsed in later killing moments and then...

...finally at the very end with Sigourney Weaver we get to see the creature "up close and personal" and at length ("sucking in" those hydraulic teeth in a moment of repose).

..and then, at the very, very, VERY end, we get to see the Alien as a cross between a rubber dummy and a man in a suit(which it often was) when the creature is tied onto, and then blown out of the rocket booster shaft.

Within two weeks (one?) I believe that Newsweek magazine or Time magazine, or both, had an Alien cover story and a photo of the fully grown creature within but -- on that opening night in 1979, part of the great fun of Alien was to finally SEE what the Alien looked like, and how it functioned, and how it killed.

We were not disappointed.

[–] DeadMac1 (158) 3 years ago

Yes, agree.

That was the genius of Scott and H R Giger. A truly off-wordly bio-mechanical design which no one could imagine. A life-cycle which no one could predict.

[–] MoviesSuck (964) 3 years ago

Good post. I wish that there were more reads like this on MovieChat.

[–] Kendricks (2075) 3 years ago

You and me both...

[–] Kendricks (2075) 3 years ago

Must have been great for first time viewers indeed.
Ever since Jaws it seems so clear to me that what makes thrill and horror work best is "less is more".
Constantly throwing the monster into people's faces makes it way less scary.

Look at Samara from The Ring, for example. IIRC, in the original version she was not see often, and there was just this one scene where we really saw her horrible face. Then an edited version came out with way more "boo!" and it ruined it for me.

Movie makers: 21st century and smart phones or not - people do still have imagination. Dare to tickle it instead of spoon feeding us visuals.

[–] millsey72 (9529) 2 years ago

This is crazy. You say less is more?? I disagree. The more we see the monster the better

[–] Kendricks (2075) 2 years ago

Then you have no idea what you're talking about, simple as that.

We fear the unknown.
The more we learn about the unknown, the more and the faster we lose any fear of it.

A monster we have hardly seen, that leaves our brain room to speculate, is always much worse than some well lit puppet or CGI effect that lets us discover its flaws with ease.

We have seen this in basically every monster movie.
It is no coincidence that those being more conservative with showing the threat are scarier.
Jaws and Alien are the prime examples for that.
Now look at later Jaws and Alien movies. They are hardly scary anymore.

[–] millsey72 (9529) 2 years ago

Maybe you fear the unknown but not me. More is better in a horror movie. When it comes to movies actually, more is always better overall. More action makes a better action movie. More sex makes a better porno. More comedy makes for a better comedy.

Learn anything yet?

[–] Kendricks (2075) 2 years ago

No, since nothing changed. You still have no idea what you're talking about so there's nothing to learn.

I guess everyone else on this planet including film makers are wrong and only you know whats best despite your weird philosophy is going 180° against reality.

You do you, what do I care.

[–] millsey72 (9529) 2 years ago

I'll try again. More is always better when it comes to movie genres. I don't know how I can simplify this more?

[–] Kendricks (2075) 2 years ago

You do you, what do I care.

[–] moviechatterer (13226) a year ago

I don't know how I can simplify this more?

That there is an admission that "less is more"

[–] Ace_Spade (9334) 2 years ago

The only way that it could work where we know more and it's worse is if the horror comes from the knowing. This might be hard to describe, but it's something along Lovecraftian lines, as an example. I'm not saying "do a Cthulhu movie where we see Cthulhu a lot," I'm saying that since cosmic dread is what is terrifying there, the more we are bathed in that knowledge of the uncaring Other, the more we soak in our loneliness.

Almost like, if ennui were the monster. Because it's something we fear in the audience, it's worse.

Another example might be a serial killer movie that highlights the mundanity of the killer. Especially if it were a "based on a true story", because we'd know, "Hey, this was real," and seeing our neighbours as murderers is terrifying, in some way. I'm thinking here about The Man in the High Castle where some of the most unsettling and effective sequences (for me) were the everyday suburban life being lead by Nazis. It was disturbing because it underlined the historical fact that, for a lot of people, it's just about "going along", which also makes one rethink, "Would I be a hero, or just falling in (goose) step?" and confronting that aspect of humanity is unsettling.

[–] FilmQuestions (67) 3 years ago

[–] Ace_Spade (9334) 3 years ago

I rarely think about that: how few horror movie monsters are surprises before the film.

I think what's great about the xenomorphs, too, is that they're still creepy and horrifying after they're seen. Far too many films show you the monsters and you think, "That's it?" but with the xenomorphs, they're still eerie, unsettling, and powerful.

Part of that is because of all they represent (sexual imagery, fear of the unknown, but my hat's off to H.R. Giger, because you can't unsee his living nightmares.

[–] Ripkens25 (1898) 3 years ago

This is a great thread, and I agree wholeheartedly...less is more. I even like the brilliant way Alien was marketed. For example. the movie poster...showing just that creepy egg, and that brilliant tagline: "In space, no one can hear you scream".

With Jaws...the less is more approach was serendipity. The shark kept breaking down, so they had to come up with creative ways to *imply* that the shark was nearby or approaching.

I also like the relatively minimalist approach with the original Halloween. There was virtually zero blood or gore in the entire movie. You rarely saw Michael Meyers....and when you did, he was just a mysterious figure lurking in the shadows. We didn't know about his childhood...his family life...what drives him, etc. (The sequels spilled all that and it completely ruined the mystique of "The Shape"). In the original....we didn't *need* to know anything about him. What made him so spooky was simply that he was that mysterious nightmare from under your bed--he was the boogeyman.

By the time all the sequels came out, and an overexposed (and overly-explained) Michael Meyers had a standard uniform (coveralls and a mask)....a theme song...an action figure and a lunchbox, he ceased to be anything scary anymore.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Agree. I saw the movie when it first came out. We didn't know hardly anything about it except some movie reviewers said the film was really scary. I vaguely remember a TV commercial showing an egg-like object cracking open and making that screeching noise.

---

That egg...and the green light it emitted...was a brilliant "come on": we HAD to see what this was about. And the catch-phrase is one of the greatest of all time: "In space, no one can hear you scream." (Indeed this is referenced "up thread.")

---

Seeing the metal teeth/jaws for the first time was terrifying.

--

It was amazingly inventive, and "fleshed out" with what seemed to be hot water pouring out of both mouths and a rather steely "robot" like effect that wasn't true...this was a creature, not a robot.

The speed with which the alien grew from "baby" to full grown was shocking and inventive , too. Harry Dean and the others thought they were hunting a small rat-like creature...but it was now and suddenly really big. Again...so inventive.

And: with all the twists and turns of the alien and its appearance, the writers through in a DIFFERENT curve ball: the revelation of Ash as a robot -- capable of being beheaded and still able to speak from the head."

I recall in that instant where Ash turned on Ripley and tried to kill her, and then got hit in the head, and then started spewing creamy liquid from his mouth, that some of us thought Ash was yet ANOTHER victim about to hatch an alien. Or perhaps had been taken over by it(ala The Thing to come just three years later.)

Endlessly inventive movie. Set a great template.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

By the time all the sequels came out, and an overexposed (and overly-explained) Michael Meyers had a standard uniform (coveralls and a mask)....a theme song...an action figure and a lunchbox, he ceased to be anything scary anymore.

--

Ha. Well, alas, it seems that almost every "less is more" monster eventually gets over-exposed and over-shown and over-familiar in the sequels. That said, some of the later "Alien" films are still watchable versus the original.

The shark in Jaws wasn't seen a lot...and for awhle, he was only shown "a little at a time"(not at all with the first female victim; just a flash of fin with the young boy...finally head and jaws visible as he killed the lifeguard).

And even back in HItchcock's seminal "Psycho," the horrific monster of an old lady with a knife was hardly seen at ALL after her first big "shower murder" attack. Terrified (and rather innocent) 1960 audiences spent the rest of the film after that just THINKING about "Mrs. Bates," and she only really came out to kill, very quickly.

[–] millsey72 (9529) 2 years ago

Nah, people like me want to know as much as we can about Michael Myers. The more we see him, the better

[–] Scape (504) 2 years ago

Completely disagree.
The more you see & know something/anything, especially in horror, the more watered down & less scary it gets.

Example is Alien (less) compared to something dumb and overdone like Alien vs Predator (more). I don’t think anyone thinks the latter is scarier than the original. Same for the terrible Rob Zombie Halloween remake.

I don’t get your thinking at all.

[–] millsey72 (9529) 2 years ago

You're telling me you were afraid watching the movie Alien? Did you think the Alien itself would jump out of your TV and attack you?

[–] Scape (504) 2 years ago

No, I’m not telling you that. Unfortunately I’ve seen Alien so many times growing up that I don’t remember a time when I didn’t know what was going to happen next, which ruined the scary factor for me.

But I do know most people found it scary when it came out. And most people found Alien vs Predator to be lame. Same again for Zombie’s Halloween remake.

[–] IrinaOma (648) 3 years ago

Even its trailer is pure perfection! It doesn't show the monster but the trailer looks amazingly captivating and creepy

[–] MikeCable (1658) 2 years ago

The trailer is so creepy - that sound especially.

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

For as little as we see the monster overall, it works extraordinarily well. I credit Scott for that, his direction, the great production and I give a lot of credit to the actors, who were all at their best. Their reactions were just about perfect. I can't think of a better acted SF film.

[–] degray9 (1126) 3 years ago

The design of the creature is very much original. It definitely has echoes of classic Universal horror monsters like the Creature from the Black Lagoon, Dracula, the Wolfman etc. but in a realistic sci-fi setting.

I think if Scott had kept in the deleted scenes of what happened to Dallas and Brett, then it would have brought the house down in 1979. There’s a full 5 minute cut of the deleted cocoon sequence and it’s the most disturbing thing ever captured on film.

[–] Roguemail (1562) 2 years ago

Remember also that in 79 there was very little advance publicity, nowhere to go and look at what the movie was going to look like, apart from film magazines which showed very little and were usually months behind the release date anyway.

There was TV and a very small number of cinema review programmes, but the prevailing attitude was the opposite of today...rather it was to hold back and tease on what was to come. The iconic "No one can hear you scream" trailer and the "cracked egg" trailer were all you got.

[–] ecarle (14979) a year ago

I wonder if a modern campaign for Alien would have the guts to release the film without a photo of the grown creature...that said even in 1979 it only took about 2 weeks for a Newsweek cover story to appear, with a photo of the Alien within.

[–] ccr1633 (1411) a year ago

I also wonder if a modern production of Alien would have the guts to cast actors who credibly looked like the weary, disgruntled, middle-aged industrial space-miners they were playing. This is one of the things I greatly miss about modern sci-fi/horror/fantasy fare (Tom Cruise and Will Smith don't do it for me, either). Tom Skerritt actually did look like a space vessel manager who just wanted to get the job done without administrative roadblocks or dealing with the squabbling of his crew. Star Wars also had this quality in its cast, as did The Thing. One fairly recent film I was impressed with in this regard was Rogue One, which I also thought was wonderful to look at with its long distance shots rather than the frenzied quick-edit close-ups that Tony Scott and others in his wake polluted cinema with.

[–] Melton (2092) 8 months ago

Hell, you wouldn’t even be allowed to make an original movie these days. No way would a studio throw decent money at something that wasn’t already a recognisable IP with a built-in fanbase.

The days of Hollywood making real films are over.

[–] Ace_Spade (9334) 8 months ago

I think decent stuff will slip through, although I do generally agree that Hollywood is in a bloated rut right now. Frankly, Disney owns too much stuff, and it's just running around crazy, like No-Face in Spirited Away.

Still, we do see cash get thrown to original films every now and then. Maybe not as much as a Marvel movie or a Disney Live-Action Remake, but those budgets are overblown, anyway.

Bottom line, I think we'll always see original stuff come through, even with Hollywood's risk-aversion filmmaking style (not to mention the slurry of cliched drivel that's about to be pumped out by AI "writers")

[–] Melton (2092) 8 months ago

What woukd be some examples?

[–] Ace_Spade (9334) 8 months ago

Of original films that get a reasonable budget?

So, I haven't seen it yet (no spoilers!) but Everything, Everywhere, All At Once isn't based on existing IP and was very popular.

Do historical films count for you? They're based on something, but it's not IP. Oppenheimer, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and The Irishman are fairly recent. Jojo Rabbit looked original, too (also haven't seen it; also no spoilers, please).

Knives Out, The Lighthouse, Strange World, Encanto, Seeing Red, Licorice Pizza, The Fabelmans, Midsommar, and The Shape of Water. I'm not saying they're all awesome (depending on your taste), just that they are original IPs with big budgets.

Woody Allen keeps putting out original material, too. Okay, he's not getting huge budgets, but he's doing original stuff. Doesn't help that his stuff is getting buried more and more thanks to cancel culture.

[–] Melton (2092) 8 months ago

Thing is, a lot of those are by small independents (Lighthouse, EEAAO) and/or go straight to streaming (Irishman). The big Hollywood studios just aren’t funding original stuff. Maybe you can find one here or there but it’s scraping the barrel.

The last good mid-budget thriller I saw at the cinema was Gone Girl… 9 years ago. I love those films, so do most people, they cost relatively little and make bank but Hollywood just wants to plough money into mega-budget monstrosities that are starting to flop hard.

[–] Ace_Spade (9334) 8 months ago

Sure, but others aren't. Plus, even in years-gone-by, Hollywood has played it risk-averse and shunted riskier projects to smaller studios, or at least "arthouse" branches like Fox Searchlight.

I agree with you that the MO of Hollywood is playing things safer, too march Marvel/Star Wars/Whatever, too many live-action Disney remakes, etc., but I maintain that one can still find some of that good stuff, if a little digging happens first.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 months ago

Whether movies are better today or worse is debateable ..every generation likes d ifferent things. But three things have changed them. Corporate control and consolidation. Silicon Valley taking over effects and cinematography from old school shops. A lowest common denominator international market.

[–] jacotodd47 (977) 3 months ago

It's hard to know. I was recently nursing a knee problem - spent a lot of time watching movies. One probably started around 50-60 movies. Maybe about ten of them I watched all the way thru. I only thought 4 of those ten were good movies.

These were all recent efforts, produced within the last 5-7 years. One has never had to work that hard to find good films. So, is it me? Or are movies worse today?

I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[–] Ace_Spade (9334) 3 months ago

We're also looking at a kind of "survivor bias" as far as older movies go. Movies weren't better in the '30s and '40s because we got films like Casablanca and Citizen Kane. It's just that those are the ones we remember. We might want to compare best films of present day against the best of the oldies to get a better "calibration," but even then, comparing for personal taste is difficult.

I do agree with your three problems. Corporate control is bad. I would also agree that it seemed less prevalent in the '70s when European influence on cinema was being felt and "art first" seemed more common. But, again, I don't know, maybe that's just my recollection/which films "survived".

I do think that these three problems have always existed, though. The Old Hollywood Studio System was corporate control and caused problems then. Despite that, we got stuff like The Maltese Falcon. Effects are always good when used well by a creative mind and bad when used poorly or without thought. Gollum still looks good because they made decisions based on best use of tech and what they wanted creatively. Or, heck, think about the first two Matrix movies. The first one went, "How can we slow down time?" and created the bullet time rig. That effect still looks cool because it serves the story. The second film gave us the "burly brawl" because they *could* more than because they wanted to. They were just slapping CGI faces because they could.

If effects serve the story, they'll work even with CG. If they don't serve the story, they won't work. Creativity matters, too. A creative mind blends F/X types to give us Jurassic Park. A lousy one comes up with some of the chintzier-looking puppet monstrosities of '80s schlock movies.

The lowest common denominator has almost always been pandered to.

I think of it more as executives vs. creatives. Sometimes the "bosses" crunch down on creatives and we get movies that are "optimised" for making money. Sometimes they figure out to back off.