MovieChat Forums > AZ > Replies
AZ's Replies
I wouldn't say it's better, it is good in its own way.
Danny Glover gets hate but I like the middle aged disgruntled cop thing. It works with the gritty city setting. The other characters are fun too. A lot of people don't like the humor in it but I think it works and doesn't distract. It's never taken to superhero movie mugging for the camera levels.
It's not overly self aware. It's just a fun movie like the first. The first is done to near perfection so that's hard to beat. The sequel makes an honest effort.
It expands on the Predator as well, shows us more about their world, which is nice because the look and everything is consistent with the first movie.
Do you mean Gorman? The one Marine who is portrayed from the start as incompetent and his own men make fun of him? It's established that he is a fresh Lt with little real world experience. His purpose is to freeze up! Again, that is properly established.
He doesn't seem like he'd be able to use any machinery in that universe other than his comfy chair and screens even in a non panic situation. With Ripley it's established that she can work the "machines" in said universe. She's a blue collar worker with experience. Oh and she's faced a xeno before which is why she's on the mission. It's got nothing to do with anything but good character development that she steps up to the plate when the newbie Lt freezes.
Exactly, why don't people see that? It's ok to like or not like something. Personal opinion doesn't have to be reduced to political motivations.
Ah... I thought this was gonna be a valiant and neutral attempt to call out online negativity, because there is a lot of that and it's too easy to get lost in it.
Instead it's negative commentary itself "If you don't like this new thing you're this [currently acceptable to hate group/label]"
So what is being said is if you don't go along with the crowd and what it likes you are [terrible label] and will be mocked.
What is this grade school? No wonder a movie that is full of brooding adolescent attitude is looked up to as something mature.
The worst part is the movie could have been better. It could have done the "adolescent with a rebellious attitude" thing with Naru completely running away from the tribe, stumbling upon the Predator as she struggles to teach herself to hunt for survival at that point, and sacrifice herself by luring away from the tribe... fighting and defeating it... and returning wiser from it, more realistically being accepted as a hunter not being made into a chief.
They could have avoided her unintentional or not getting her tribesmen wiped out and even the "evil slaver" Frenchmen thing. As I said in another reply, she could have teamed up with the Frenchmen and shown her quality as a true selfless hero by trying to save them. As it was she seemed more like a villain herself, at war with everyone like a brooding teenager taken to the extreme.
The movie didn't need the narcissistic brooding from her nor the "woe is me no one believes in me I'll show you! but also I need your help to survive" entitled attitude. Crap that is put in there to stir the pot and create drama where it's not needed. There's plenty of drama and action that can be created with such a premise while making a truly heroic lead.
I like the Predator movies and see the potential in this movie to have been much better. It's tough to see the franchise, like many others, be treated like this.
I could write a whole essay about why I like Predator and what's great about it. Although I think I put some thought and perspective into why I don't like Prey. Your dismissive reply which doesn't address any of the points I made says more about you.
As for conservatives being whiny on here and being the majority, there are just as many liberals stirring the pot. The kettle and pot are constantly pointing at each other on this site. As an impartial observer I don't care, although your string of pejoratives toward conservatives doesn't make the opposite side look good.
As for my view of the lead in Prey, if all you got from my post is "not Ripley" then again that says more about you. I used Ripley for the example because she is a good example and most people know the character. There are many other female, and male, heroic leads who exemplify the heroic archetype too. Should I list them all?
I could start with Predator and Dutch's concern for his team, shown throughout the movie, even putting them before himself while never seeking personal glory. Even Dillion goes from someone who uses others like tools at first to someone who sacrifices himself for the team. Naru, intentional or not, constantly puts others into harmful situations, out of her own personal ambition. That is the Firefly/Serenity cynical definition of a "hero".
That's a good point. If she were truly the hero she's being made into by certain positive reviews she would have thought about that. She's more a liability to others than a hero.
Prey is no better than a "cheesy" 80s action movie with comical collateral damage. The difference is Prey is merely wrapped in package of pseudo profoundness.
At least Matrix went on his rampage to save his daughter in Commando. Naru does it for her narcissism. It's kind of disturbing that people are celebrating that. The movie lacks a soul. Instead of camaraderie among soldiers who are willing to sacrifice themselves for each other, there's a selfish adolescent doing it for herself as if that's a profound message.
This is why I couldn't get into the movie. The lead is too selfish and lacks logic and conscience. If it was a boy or a man it'd be the same, it's not because it's a girl.
As for women, Ripley showed us what being a selfless hero is about.
Prey doesn't merely subvert the masculine trope, needing a big man to go up against the Predator. It puts the lead's ego before the survival of others.
Cultural norms and conformity can suck, however the opposite extreme isn't better.
The movie would have been better if the lead wasn't as selfish or if it were a new franchise. They could have made a new spin on Beowulf or used native American lore monsters. It doesn't follow well with the originals.
The heroes in the first two movies were great not only because of their muscles but because they put their teams first. They had that old school nobility.
The lead in Prey isn't all bad however the teenage attitude of "it's all about me" is off putting. It reminds me of the game "I want to be the guy". Her wanting to be "THE one" is not what Predator movies should be about. They're about humbling of the ego in survival situations if anything.
Meanwhile the lead in Prey jumps around with near superhero moves. Not the same as Arnold hitting the Predator with his muscly fist and it not flinching, then getting hit a few times and barely crawling away.
Prey would have been better as its own original fantasy/superhero movie. It's not great as a Predator movie.
Maybe it's not carbon based, maybe there are forms of life out there that would seem fantastical by our standards. Acidic could be normal ph for them so not something they'd evolve as a weapon. Imagine Prometheus wasn't made and the xenos evolved naturally on a weird acidic planet.
Predator
Predator 2
Dark Horse Predator comics
AVP Classic video game
AVP2 video game
AVP arcade game
Probably some things I forget like an obscure version of Predator beer pong
The other Predator movies
<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.