AZ (30)


Ripley declawing the Marines the war of darkness against the light View all posts >


<blockquote>The positive side of this is that these "improvements" are the complete opposite, the movie fails hard, deservedly falls into the abyss of obscurity, and is eventually forgotten or endlessly criticized(as it should be).</blockquote> That is true. It's unfortunate so many old franchises are getting thrown through the ringer to get there. What Hollywood is doing with them is meaningless and wasteful. Maybe they want to promote nihilism and that's the point. <blockquote>Music may be the means of political discourse.</blockquote> That would be interesting. Imagine music as the means to communicate and even debate and resolve conflicts. The problem is it's an idea that would go over the heads of those in Hollywood. Those who believe they're smarter than everyone and so believe the audience must be dumber than they are. Agreed. This is a common thing these days. Hollywood is constantly retconning old movies to "improve" them, often meaning for contemporary politics or to just regress the progress of the characters because they don't know how to move them forward from where they were left off. This movie is kind of meta in that sense as it reflects the writers' inability to move Bill and Ted forward from part two. Instead they've stagnated and done nothing for thirty years. The same problem happened with Han Solo with The Force Awakens and Luke in all the Disney movies. This is again a common problem, or maybe it's intentional, with Hollywood. No ability to think in a forward and creative way anymore for them. Their minds are dulled by too much greed, too many politics, and probably too many drugs and other vices. Not the same as taking a risk to make a unique and odd movie when you're young. I don't care if the original writers made this sequel. That means nothing these days. That's been proven by how many old directors and writers have gone back to original material and messed it up up today. I'm sure many fans could have thought up a Bill and Ted sequel that is less rehash and retcon and more creative. I would have made the movie about the future. Ie. maybe we see them write and play the song then fast forward to the future where they're famous. Plenty of ways to give them something to do after that point. https://alienseries.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/crew-logs-ron-cobb <i>“I wanted the ship to look like a gothic castle,” Cobb explained, “but resisted that approach—it might have been a bit too much … I grew up with a deep fascination for astronomy, astrophysics, and most of all, aerospace flight. My design approach has always been that of a frustrated engineer (as well as a frustrated writer when it came to cinema design). I tend to subscribe to the idea that form follows function.”</i> <i>Cobb, who was later quoted in the Book of Alien explaining that he preferred to “design a spaceship as though it was absolutely real, right down to the fuel tolerances, the centers of gravity, the way the engines function, radiation shielding, whatever,”</i> Can you think of any designer in sci fi movies who works this way today? The world building in most sci fi today is **** despite the money and graphics put into movies. Also CRTs would be more advanced than panels today if companies were still developing it. They stopped because flat screens are cheaper, which is more profit. Why would the Nostromo use CRT? Perhaps if CRT tech was pursued it would be cheaper at that point. I like to believe the tech and monitors in Alien are built for function and durability, not to look nice. Although I think they look nice. They work perfectly with the mood and atmosphere of the movie. The same with Star Wars tech and old Star Trek. None of these movies would be the same with flat screens and colorful glowing holograms. Which are unfortunately used in modern sci fi not because they give the appearance of function and realism, rather because they look shiny. Which is what makes Alien more realistic looking today. It was designed by people who took the world building seriously. I find that more appealing than mere modern graphics. I would say the same about any year of movies. Some 50s sci fi looks better than modern sci fi because of the care and seriousness put into them. So many things in movies today are taken for granted and obvious after thoughts by the production teams. I think it's one of the best. I find it weird how people like to pick apart the original trilogy though. They all flow and work together. It wouldn't make sense to do another dark toned movie after Empire. Jedi provides the day after the dark night. The catharsis and resolution. "but I don't like THIS element!" You're picking apart pieces of the whole. The overall movie and trilogy is great. Nagging on Ewoks or whatever misses the point of why Jedi and the original movies are so good to begin with. There's no part of the OT I don't like but I have my favorite parts. I liken this to having a favorite song. There are certainly parts of your favorite song you like better than others, maybe it's the bridge or a certain lyric. Yet there's no part of it you dislike because it's all your favorite song. It's a strange and out of character time for her to stop speaking up and warning them. Also how do you know she knew Gorman so well? He wasn't determined from what we saw, he was unsure and lacked confidence as a commander. She had more of a vacuum to speak up during the hive scene than at any other time up to that point. She yelled at company board members who probably could have had her locked up for life for outbursts like that. What does it matter if the Marines would have listened to her or not? The point is her character was a strong proactive woman who wasn't afraid to speak out. It wasn't in that character for her to let the Marines wander in to that hostile territory mostly unarmed. She was an advisor, it was her job to speak up. More importantly she was a survivor who knew how deadly the alien was. Again all it would have taken is ten seconds more of dialogue to fix the problem and make the scene more in line with the character. From a writing standpoint Cameron had to find a way to disarm the Marines and make the initial massacre happen. If he didn't take their guns away and kill off most of the Marines, then you have overwhelming firepower against the aliens and there's no movie. So he seemed to want to reduce the Marines down to a primitive level without all their gadgets, because it's a Vietnam movie in space. It was about American technology not standing up to the strengths of the Viet Cong who won by guerilla warfare. They could blend into the jungle like ghosts, just like the aliens in the walls. My point is that the scene could have been done better. I don't know the guy so I don't know why he didn't have Ripley or Burke mention something about proceeding ahead unarmed. Maybe you don't have a problem with the scene yet I notice the lack of character logic. It doesn't ruin the movie yet it is noticeable. See the replies above. She had plenty of power to speak up, no one was restraining her. She was a bold character who always spoke up. She wasn't the type of character to say, "Well I tried, I'm gonna give up now" and go sulk. It was simply out of character for her to go silent. This could have been fixed by two lines of dialogue - "Hey Gorman shouldn't your team rearm?" and Gorman could forcefully tell her to shut up. Which might convincingly stun her bold personality long enough for the hive scene to happen. Although the quarantine issue seems like a foolish mistake it works with the context of the movie if you consider they're space truckers. They're blue collar not scientists. Yeah they shouldn't have let him in yet it's somewhat believable given how they were probably acting from shock and fear. Aliens has issues like this too, some of which I've pointed out. I don't consider them movie breaking though. If you focus on them they can be irksome. Yet they're not as bad as what happens in later movies or the prequels. As for the alien biology, that can be chalked up to it being alien. We don't know much yet, haven't really explored space. There could be new substances and natural laws out there waiting to surprise us. It is a different can of worms and obviously Gorman and some of the Marines weren't convinced of the danger by merely seeing the colony. You're the one who brought up the "area secure" line. By the time they get to the processor and have seen the colonist beacons all stationery ... and then the hive... someone should have said something about proceeding unarmed. Which should have been Ripley. Everything she did built up to her having an opportunity to say more. From yelling at the company execs and snapping at Burke. To snapping on the Sulaco at the Marines. To telling Gorman the colony wasn't secure. To say that Ripley suddenly would go quiet doesn't make sense because that's not her character, she had always been outspoken. It would have been better from a narrative perspective if she spoke up about them proceeding unarmed into the hive. Again, Gorman could shut her up. She could stew with frustration and fear until she finally takes control. Frost's line doesn't really count. He's a supporting character and it's a one liner. Yeah it's funny yet it's not important to the plot. It's like many of Hudson's lines, they're funny yet don't move the plot forward. They're there for humor and steam release. It's not the same as Ripley or Burke saying something. Also, by your logic Aliens must not be a good horror story because the entire plot requires the characters show a lack of logic in the hive. I get that the Marines are supposed to be overconfident so ok they proceed ahead. Ripley had no excuse and should have said something. Whether bad writing or a lapse in judgment, it is a narrative issue. Some would say Aliens because how it changes the alien. Yet Cameron put a lot of care into making the sequel mesh with the original in terms of aesthetic, characters, and tone. The first two movies most feel like they're in the same universe. You can find something to like from any angle - the characters, the sets, the practical effects alien designs. They created a lot of positive momentum and good will with audiences. The third movie threw that out in the opening act by killing two major characters and much of the tone/momentum of the first two movies. There's a deep space exploration (and dread) atmosphere to the first two movies. The first has the Nostromo in deep space. The second has the colony, which is on the planet from the original. The third grinds that to a halt on a drab prison planet with a bunch of bald guys who mostly all sound and look the same (to American audiences). If they were gonna go with an "Alien on a populated world" theme they should have went all out like on a space station or colony. The way they did it, by killing two beloved characters and setting it on a prison world with characters most people don't care about, wasn't a good way for most audiences. They could have allowed Hicks some screen time before killing him, give him survivor's guilt and PTSD to keep the dour tone of the movie, don't have to make the three of them perfectly happy. You could show them coping with the events of Aliens, and then throw them into another mess with the aliens so they have no time to process it. There's plenty of dark territory that could have been explored while respecting these characters and giving them arcs worthy of them. What they did was absurd. To bring the series momentum to a screeching halt was nonsensical. So was thinking that the franchise was about Ripley alone and her being in the movie (and the alien) was all that was needed. That's like saying Alien could have been made by Ridley Scott without HR Giger, Dan Obannon, and so forth. How has that worked with the prequels? The best movies are ensemble pieces from crew to cast. Then again maybe Cameron got the ball rolling by saying Aliens was all about Ripley, even if it wasn't. By AR she should have suspected something when they get away in the ship, or rather the writers should have had her show more savvy. View all replies >