Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can someone explain Alien (1979) to me like I'm stupid?

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Fysh wrote: »
    I mean, you've hardly made a compelling case for "Alien is a derivative and pointless film".

    That's not at all what I am suggesting. The OP asked why it is considered one of the greatest movies of all time, and I'm pointing out that it isn't.

    It's an unoriginal horror movie script with an unusually big budget and high production values.

    ...and the plot doesn't bear accidental similarities to Van Vogt, it's a clear rip, and they paid up on that basis when sued.

    Mario Bava had reason to be cheesed at them, too, for Planet of the Vampires, and Khachaturian was only dead a year.


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    The OP asked why it is considered one of the greatest movies of all time, and I'm pointing out that it isn't.

    According to IMDB it stands as #42 in their top movies of all time list (arguably up as high as 35 since there are several films on the same score).
    So obviously it is considered by a great many one of the greatest movies of all time whether some disagree or not.
    For example, I did not care for Forrest Gump, but it's still considered a classic despite me.

    edit: curiously though, there IS some very Space Jockeyish imagery in that clip you posted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Galvasean wrote: »
    According to IMDB it stands as #42 in their top movies of all time list

    Yeah, and The Shawshank Redemption is #1 best movie ever. Give me a break.

    Ha! Avengers Assemble is in at #29, before it even opens in the states!


  • Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭QDog10


    Alien is a pretty simple movie great but simple
    ship lands, picks up alien, alien kills them all

    The Key to the movie is the surpise of the Alien
    even the trailers gave nothing away.(the egg, the facegrapper, the "birth"
    the rapid growth, acid blood and so on)

    If you have already seen all the other movies first and you know everything about the Alien, there is no surpise, no suspense.

    You need to either watch Alien before all the others
    or put yourself in a cinema movie goer seeing this for first time back in the day

    Watching it with full knowledge of the Alien beast destroys the main strenght of the movie.

    You got to be joking me?? The surprise of the Alien.. The title is called Alien??
    Great flick to be fair though...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Mario Bava had reason to be cheesed at them, too, for Planet of the Vampires, and Khachaturian was only dead a year.

    If anyone should be pissed off its the writer of IT! The Terror from beyond Space, 1958 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It!_The_Terror_from_Beyond_Space

    Still this is a very silly point to argue about, isn't it?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Yeah, and The Shawshank Redemption is #1 best movie ever. Give me a break.

    CONSIDERED. Obviously a great many consider it the greatest.
    Unless everybody is lying about what films they consider great just to annoy people like yourself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    mike65 wrote: »
    Still this is a very silly point to argue about, isn't it?

    I saw Battleship the other week, and I think it is a valid criticism to say that it is completely unoriginal, a show-reel of clichés glued together with special effects.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 10,999 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    That's not at all what I am suggesting. The OP asked why it is considered one of the greatest movies of all time, and I'm pointing out that it isn't.

    It's an unoriginal horror movie script with an unusually big budget and high production values.

    ...and the plot doesn't bear accidental similarities to Van Vogt, it's a clear rip, and they paid up on that basis when sued.

    Mario Bava had reason to be cheesed at them, too, for Planet of the Vampires, and Khachaturian was only dead a year.

    On what basis is it unoriginal? At some point all horror narratives feature certain common themes & ideas - without this aspect there's no genre to speak of.

    In visual terms, it's groundbreaking - both for the depiction of space travel as something boring and monotonous (as opposed to the optimistic exploration that had up until its release been the norm in film) and for its unsettling design for the xenomorph (see comments about body-horror elements above).

    In terms of "humanity making contact with alien life" in films, it's innovative as well - shockingly brutal in terms of humanity's ability to fight, but without the militaristic overtones of other "alien menace from beyond the stars" type features.

    In terms of the film's approach & direction - it's tense & claustrophobic, it relies on suggestion rather than depiction for the majority of the film, and it features some shocking scenes (the chestburster scene is still powerful visually). The execution is very confident and shows a lot of craftmanship.

    And I notice that you're trotting out "unoriginality" again without backing it up, presumably because in film terms at least you know you're kind of talking out of your browneye. I'd like to see you explain why, in terms of sci-fi/horror films, Alien is unoriginal - for example, a list of well-received and widely-distributed films released one or more years prior to it which tread similar territory with a similar approach. I'd also like to see why originality is such a singularly important feature for a creative work that even strong, innovative execution isn't considered worthy or notable in a film deemed unoriginal.

    As for paying up - there are evidently clear similarities, but the case is settled out of court and in the absence of any actual hard evidence of intent we can't actually speak with any authority on the matter one way or another. (In the same way that the League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen film's lawsuit was settled out of court, except that in that case the prevailing opinion was that the claims were a load of old dangly bits - but with an out-of-court settlement where no guilt is explicitly admitted, we'll never know.)

    You not considering it a great film does not mean "everyone" doesn't consider it a great film. Thus far you've mainly presented what appears to be a case of sour grapes on behalf of other people, rather than actual criticism of the film and its place in film canon.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭foxyboxer


    For a big budget movie in the late 70's the idea of a female hero was an original idea in itself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Fysh wrote: »
    In visual terms, it's groundbreaking - both for the depiction of space travel as something boring and monotonous

    10 years after 2001: A Space Odyssey
    unsettling design for the xenomorph (see comments about body-horror elements above).

    Yes, the rubber suit is better than the one in IT! or The Thing. I already granted that it had a bigger budget and better production values than the usual monster movie.
    In terms of "humanity making contact with alien life" in films, it's innovative as well - shockingly brutal in terms of humanity's ability to fight, but without the militaristic overtones of other "alien menace from beyond the stars" type features.

    Have a read of the synopsis of IT! The Terror from Beyond Space.
    And I notice that you're trotting out "unoriginality" again without backing it up, presumably because in film terms at least you know you're kind of talking out of your browneye.

    Did you watch Part 5 of Planet of the Space Vampires at the Youtube link which I provided earlier?
    we'll never know

    Well, I'd read the relevant stories (they are in the fixup novel The Voyage of the Space Beagle, if you're interested), and I recognized the source as soon as I saw the movie the first time.

    I only saw Planet of the Space Vampires many years later, without knowing of any connection, and my jaw was hanging open when the crew crossed the misty lansdcape of rocks and entering the giant derelict ship, discovered the huge skeletal remains of the crew.
    actual criticism of the film and its place in film canon.

    Nothing I'm saying is at all unique to me: read the reviews of the movie from back when it came out. That was the general reaction. Big budget SF horror movie with cliched horror movie plot and terrific visuals from Ridley Scott, ad-man.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭foxyboxer


    Yeah I read the reviews of Peeping Tom when it was released too. What's the point?
    Reviews of Star Wars were just as divisive.

    Overcoming the Monster is one of the 7 plots in literature and Alien is an enduring example of that plot.

    And on the question of it being unoriginal again. Could you level such a criticism at HR Giger and his original work? The producers and Scott were smart enough to understand that they had a movie was your basic run of the mill creature feature. They understood that the whole project hinged on the unique creature design and hiring Giger and incorporating his work into the extended production design was the masterstroke.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,101 ✭✭✭Technocentral


    As usual on this forum you have people arguing for the sake of it, its a great film, just leave it at that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    foxyboxer wrote: »
    The producers and Scott were smart enough to understand that they had a movie was your basic run of the mill creature feature.

    Hey, we all agree!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭foxyboxer


    Hey, we all agree!

    I take it you won't be seeing Prometheus then?
    After all Ridley is only an Ad-man. :pac:


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 10,999 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    10 years after 2001: A Space Odyssey

    Oh, now you're just being silly. Are you really saying that it's intuitively obvious that interstellar freight missions are equivalent to interstellar scientific exploration missions?

    Also, that's one film. Care to try again?
    Yes, the rubber suit is better than the one in IT! or The Thing. I already granted that it had a bigger budget and better production values than the usual monster movie.

    "Better production values" doesn't cut it in terms of describing the work Giger put into the creature design, as well as the direction & photography of the film itself.

    You seem to be trying to suggest that Alien only has these positive attributes because someone threw money at it. I'm saying that as well as money, it took craft and skill and hard work to achieve that effect. It's not some rubbish exercise in pyrotechnics (eg Battleship) - it's a strong film in its own right as well as a compelling horror film.
    Have a read of the synopsis of IT! The Terror from Beyond Space.

    That's one film.

    So Alien is unoriginal in its depiction of space travel (because it sort of maybe ish resembles the space travel depiction in 2001) and it's unoriginal its depiction of human|alien interaction (because of this thing) and it's unoriginal as a horror (for unspecified reasons).
    Did you watch Part 5 of Planet of the Space Vampires at the Youtube link which I provided earlier?

    You're missing my point - you claim "unoriginality" as though loads of films have trodden the same territory as Alien, then fall back to one or two examples. (And I'm not disputing there are clear similarities, I just don't see them invalidating the entire film the way you do).

    You ignore all attempts to explain that a substantial part of the film's merit is the quality of execution of its ideas (including the creature design) as though these are all tiny facets and irrelevant when compared to the enormity of its failing in the area of originality.

    By that criteria, watching almost any film ever made must leave you grinding your teeth in disgust.
    Nothing I'm saying is at all unique to me: read the reviews of the movie from back when it came out. That was the general reaction. Big budget SF horror movie with cliched horror movie plot and terrific visuals from Ridley Scott, ad-man.

    Right, that'd be why it won a Saturn & Hugo award, because everyone thought it was a load of clichéd rubbish.

    Besides which, we're still talking about the thing in this detail over 30 years after it came out. I think that's a strong argument against it being quite as narratively cack-handed as you insist, at least in terms of its general reception


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    foxyboxer wrote: »
    I take it you won't be seeing Prometheus then?
    After all Ridley is only an Ad-man. :pac:

    I'll wait for the reviews. What I've seen so far is ho-hum: oh, look, ancient astronaut invitations blah-blah Stargate aaaah Run Away! etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Fysh wrote: »
    By that criteria, watching almost any film ever made must leave you grinding your teeth in disgust.

    Folks are reacting as though I think Alien is crap. I don't.

    I just don't think it's one of the greatest films ever made as stated in the OP. I very much doubt that Ridley Scott thinks so either.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 10,999 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    Folks are reacting as though I think Alien is crap. I don't.

    I just don't think it's one of the greatest films ever made as stated in the OP. I very much doubt that Ridley Scott thinks so either.

    Don't get me wrong - if you don't like the film, or you didn't enjoy it, that's fair enough.

    What I find strange is your assertion that it's unoriginal - while there are a couple of low-budget crapfests that share some similarities (and there are some narratives and at least one film that it appears to have cribbed rather a lot from, even if subconsciously), I don't think that can be considered enough to render the film unoriginal, or at least not sufficiently unoriginal to be devoid of any merit.

    Even if we were to accept it as a run-of-the-mill horror, it's executed in a much better fashion than almost any comparable film at its time of release - the script isn't anywhere near as clunky as most, the acting is solid, and the direction is confident and professional. So it still raises the bars quite considerably for horror films, which is worthy of note (especially considering the perennial popularity of the slasher whose adherents will forgive all sorts of things if the filmmakers know to adhere to formula). It's a disservice to the film to merely address this with "oh, it had good production values" - it had excellent production values and great execution (reflected in its success in terms of winning awards for direction, design, sound, cinematography & visual effects) in areas where similar films usually had terrible ones, which is a large part of why it's so effective.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭DustyMan


    Getting back to the film 'Alien'. Can anyone explain, and or correct me if I'm wrong; When they (The Mining/Cargo vessel) received a distress signal from the Alien ship which had ? crash landed and they went to investigate it et cetera. Why then later in the film was it revealed that this signal was in fact a warning beacon i.e to stay away. Why was this? If the 'Alien' wanted to continue 'its life' why would they/it/the Aliens send out a warning beacon instead of a distress signal? Ok I know they were bad news but ......


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 10,999 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    DustyMan wrote: »
    Getting back to the film 'Alien'. Can anyone explain, and or correct me if I'm wrong; When they (The Mining/Cargo vessel) received a distress signal from the Alien ship which had ? crash landed and they went to investigate it et cetera. Why then later in the film was it revealed that this signal was in fact a warning beacon i.e to stay away. Why was this? If the 'Alien' wanted to continue 'its life' why would they/it/the Aliens send out a warning beacon instead of a distress signal? Ok I know they were bad news but ......

    From memory I think the interpretation was that the beacon wasn't set by the xenomorphs but by the Space Jockeys, as a warning about the xenomorph being present. Kind of like an attempted self-identification as a plague ship, I suppose.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement