Alien 3 & 4

Sad Professor · 21-04-2012 12:24AM

Resurrection is actually pretty good if you are fan of Whedon or Jeunet. It's basically an early version of Firefly. But if you are an Alien fan, it's utterly woeful and completely at odds with the tone of the rest of the series. A big part of the problem is I don't think either Whedon or Jeunet were fans of the original film. They just seem like they were doing their own thing. Say what you like about Alien 3, but there's no doubt that Fincher loved the original Alien and was trying to make a film as good.

Mance Rayder · 21-04-2012 12:31AM

Alien 3 was good IMO. Not as good as the first two but very watchable for a fan of the franchise. Alien 4 was just ok, watchable as a stand alone move but cannot stand beside the original trilogy.

21-04-2012 12:41AM

Alien 3 is the kind of movie that you would watch if on tv as it's not bad. Decent cast in it too, as people have said it really does try to recreate the first one which it did a good job of creating that horror side of things. Still not a patch on the original. Alien was just a total shock when you first watch it, such a good movie.

pixelburp · 21-04-2012 12:46AM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Good gravy man, you were expecting a black and white art movie?

Almost every scene, character, line, creation, set-piece from the second film has become absolutely iconic, and for good reason, it's a 1986 film that has since rarely been matched let alone surpassed.

What the hell has arthouse B&W movies got to do with anything? My problem with Aliens is simply that it ultimately took the Xenomorphs into the realm of just being another monster in the closest, or glorified target practice as a swarm. Alien 1 & 3 understood the menace it could pose both literally & metaphorically; and as great as Aliens was a movie, it was the progenitor for the AvP nonsense.

Sad Professor wrote:

Resurrection is actually pretty good if you are fan of Whedon or Jeunet. It's basically an early version of Firefly. But if you are an Alien fan, it's utterly woeful and completely at odds with the tone of the rest of the series. A big part of the problem is I don't think either Whedon or Jeunet were fans of the original film. They just seem like they were doing their own thing. Say what you like about Alien 3, but there's no doubt that Fincher loved the original Alien and was trying to make a film as good.

Ok that I don't see, you'll have to explain that one.

Lemming wrote:

But jesus did it take a turn for absolute debacle in spectacular fashion with the
evolution of the alien birthing process to create that absolute freak of an alien

Don't think we need to spoiler-text a film that's now 15 years old. Interesting side fact about that Alien hybrid: the puppet was extremely explicit & had very prominent genitalia. The studio saw the FX, freaked out & demanded that the Alien's weird mutant male/female wang be edited out in post-production.

Mickeroo · 21-04-2012 12:51AM

pixelburp wrote: »

Ok that I don't see, you'll have to explain that one.

The crew of the Betty are a carbon copy of the gang from Firefly, more or less.

Sad Professor · 21-04-2012 12:59AM

Yeah, there's loads of similarities between the crew of the Betty and the crew of Serenty. Resurrection was definitely an early take on what eventually became Firefly.

FlashD · 21-04-2012 03:54AM

pixelburp wrote: »

My problem with Aliens is simply that it ultimately took the Xenomorphs into the realm of just being another monster in the closest, or glorified target practice as a swarm.
.

What are you on about man? You sure you've watched Aliens or did you miss all this part (below)?

The audience learns way more about the alien species in Aliens than Alien. It showed us how it isn't just another monster in a closet, it shows how it creates a nest, how it breeds, feeds "they mostly come at night, mostly" and has a colony structure.

Alien 3 for me is the end of the Alien saga, it's worth watching but is disappointing compared to the first two. It's fairly grim, depressing stuff.

Alien Ressurection is also worth a watch but really has no connection to the first 3 films. Stylish cheesy fun.

fluke · 21-04-2012 09:12AM

I've come to a point now where I'm okay at best with 3 & 4 but (here's a real fanboy thing) I don't consider them to be canon. Even though Alien & Aliens are different movies they feel like they exist in the same universe. The tone after that is off-kilter and 3 & 4 almost feel like alternative universe stories.

Somebody else wrote in the thread that with 4 they moved away from character based stuff to focusing on the monster. It's odd because I feel like they got the balance right in the first two movies and then come the third movie it just went to hell.

First there was these shitty Brit prison characters, who all look the same, they're unmemorable (except for the doctor character). In the first two films there were an array of interesting and fun characters to root for... who gives a shit about scumbag prisoners? Newt and Hicks are killed off and we get these, yeah great job...

Also as a result of that (and to an extent the second film) the film focuses way too much on Ripley, and her relationship with the alien, even having looked at the failed scripts like the wooden planet (which is interesting) the writers seemed hellbent on it being all about Ripley. I like Ripley's character but with the focus largely on her the writers would only end up going down the obvious route of her sacrificing herself. Really I felt like her character arc nicely closed with Aliens. In essence if Prometheus is good (no great) then maybe that will be the proper trilogy - Prometheus, Alien & Aliens.

Alien 3 does have some nice set design and music going for it, but that's about it.

As for Alien: Resuscitation well don't bother. I liked it when I was younger just because it wasn't as grim as 3. It's a turd, shit effects, shit hybrid and shit characters. I recently saw an alternative ending where they land on earth and Ripley is talking to Call and it's revealed they've landed (albeit with ropey Betty effects) in Paris. I was like fuck off...stupid French angle...what the...ugh!

To the original poster don't bother with 3 & 4, no really, because if you do every time you watch the first two you'll be reminded of what happens next - what is seen can't be unseen.

Sad Professor · 21-04-2012 09:20AM

I love Aliens. It's a kick-ass action film and one of the finest sequels ever made. However, it reduced the "perfect organism" of the first film to a bunch of mindless drones that throw themselves in front of machine gun fire. As a result, Cameron pretty much killed the xenomorph for future films. It would never be scary again.

fluke · 21-04-2012 09:29AM

Sad Professor wrote: »

I love Aliens. It's a kick-ass action film and one of the finest sequels ever made. However, it reduced the "perfect organism" of the first film to a bunch of mindless drones that throw themselves in front of machine gun fire. As a result, Cameron pretty much killed the xenomorph for future films. It would never be scary again.

It's funny you say that because just as I was writing up my post I thought of how I love 1 & 2, Aliens is one of my favorite movies of all time and I actually saw that first years ago when I was 12 I think, then I saw 3, then 4 and then 1 (odd i know). I'm not afraid to admit it though but when you put Aliens beside Alien, Aliens is like a souped up version of the first one - this one goes to 11!

Zio · 21-04-2012 12:06PM

krudler wrote: »

flimsy dialogue? watch Serenity right now, flimsy is the last thing you'd call it

I seen it and its still what I'd call it! Its all a horrible wild west influenced sci fi mess! I dont like Joss Whedons style all his stuff just deosent have any substance with cheesey dialogue just nothing memorable. Like I said before its my opinion, people like his stuff and people dont like it, theres no point trying to convince me otherwise.

krudler · 21-04-2012 12:50PM

Sad Professor wrote: »

I love Aliens. It's a kick-ass action film and one of the finest sequels ever made. However, it reduced the "perfect organism" of the first film to a bunch of mindless drones that throw themselves in front of machine gun fire. As a result, Cameron pretty much killed the xenomorph for future films. It would never be scary again.

I love Aliens as well, its how you do a sequel, different from the original but maintains the basic feel of it, just ramps up everything, Alien is a horror movie, Aliens is an action film. Its still got one of the best climactic acts to a movie ever, from Ripley tooling herself up on the dropship going after Newt to the fight with the powerloader its one extended action sequence after another.

pixelburp · 21-04-2012 12:53PM

FlashD wrote: »

What are you on about man? You sure you've watched Aliens or did you miss all this part (below)?

The audience learns way more about the alien species in Aliens than Alien. It showed us how it isn't just another monster in a closet, it shows how it creates a nest, how it breeds, feeds "they mostly come at night, mostly" and has a colony structure.

Alien 3 for me is the end of the Alien saga, it's worth watching but is disappointing compared to the first two. It's fairly grim, depressing stuff.

Alien Ressurection is also worth a watch but really has no connection to the first 3 films. Stylish cheesy fun.

Think you're missing my point. As Sad Professor has already said, Cameron changed the nature of the beast & turned the Xenomorph into something it wasn't before. The details aren't really important, I personally thought The xenos were far more effective as the lone terror than the faceless swarm the creatures became in the 2nd movie. It's still a great film (not even going to dignify that part with a defence of my love for the film) but the change to the mythology ultimately damaged the franchise's chops as a horror concept in the long-run.

johnny_ultimate · 21-04-2012 01:00PM

Aye, I'd definitely agree with Aliens irrevocably altering the nature of one of cinema's finest monsters. It's a huge leap from overpowered predator to canon fodder, and a leap that was only pulled off once due to Cameron's craftmanship.

Looking at the trailers for Aliens: Colonial Marines - the upcoming first person shooter - and it just looks like another massacre simulator in many regards. Imagine an Alien game where there's only one enemy, instead of hundreds of them. Perhaps it's outside the realm of what developers are capable of and what a demanding audience expect, but to me it's simply another indicator of how a franchise initially defined by horror has sadly become one defined by action.

Mickeroo · 21-04-2012 01:03PM

pixelburp wrote: »

Think you're missing my point. As Sad Professor has already said, Cameron changed the nature of the beast & turned the Xenomorph into something it wasn't before. The details aren't really important, I personally thought The xenos were far more effective as the lone terror than the faceless swarm the creatures became in the 2nd movie. It's still a great film (not even going to dignify that part with a defence of my love for the film) but the change to the mythology ultimately damaged the franchise's chops as a horror concept in the long-run.

I don't think it changed the mythology at all, it just added to it and it fit with what we already knew in the first movie. The xeno needed to be impregnated into something by a facehugger, the facehugger came from an egg, all aliens did is showed what laid the eggs. Going by the amount of eggs in the chamber it was logical that in a normal setting there would be tonnes of xenos.

I know there was stuff in the directors cut that may have suggested a slightly different physiology in the first movie iirc, but as a continuation of the the original cut I don't see any major change, only in the quantity of xenos. Personally I find the idea of a xeno swarm scarier, though obviously Alien is the scarier film

Mickeroo · 21-04-2012 01:08PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Aye, I'd definitely agree with Aliens irrevocably altering the nature of one of cinema's finest monsters. It's a huge leap from overpowered predator to canon fodder, and a leap that was only pulled off once due to Cameron's craftmanship.

Looking at the trailers for Aliens: Colonial Marines - the upcoming first person shooter - and it just looks like another massacre simulator in many regards. Imagine an Alien game where there's only one enemy, instead of hundreds of them. Perhaps it's outside the realm of what developers are capable of and what a demanding audience expect, but to me it's simply another indicator of how a franchise initially defined by horror has sadly become one defined by action.

That game has been in development for bloody ages, guts of ten years! In fairness though, if there's only one xeno and the people have guns, the people will come out on top imo, the only reason it did so well in the first movie was the claustrophobic setting and the crews incompetence with the flame throwers.

johnny_ultimate · 21-04-2012 01:17PM

I think the problem is that guns seem like such a, shall we say, 'lazy' solution. It's a tool that gives the wielder an unfair advantage, in stark contrast to the first film where the lack of tools is what defined the horror. We get so many films and games that are simple blast-a-thons, and the Xenomorph is a creature that initially seemed well beyond mere cannon fodder. If you encountered one, you were more or less ****ed. Introducing guns almost made it too easy.

I doubt many will deny Aliens is a damn good film. But a part of me would love to see a true successor to the original, in film or game form. And watching Colonial Marines - which resembles the countless other gruff space marine simulators we've seen - I can't help but think of the interesting game that could've emerged had they went back to its roots.

Still, better than more AvP nonsense :pac:

krudler · 21-04-2012 01:20PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I think the problem is that guns seem like such a, shall we say, 'lazy' solution. It's a tool that gives the wielder an unfair advantage, in stark contrast to the first film where the lack of tools is what defined the horror. We get so many films and games that are simple blast-a-thons, and the Xenomorph is a creature that initially seemed well beyond mere cannon fodder. If you encountered one, you were more or less ****ed. Introducing guns almost made it too easy.

I doubt many will deny Aliens is a damn good film. But a part of me would love to see a true successor to the original, in film or game form. And watching Colonial Marines - which resembles the countless other gruff space marine simulators we've seen - I can't help but think of the interesting game that could've emerged had they went back to its roots.

Still, better than more AvP nonsense :pac:

except, y'know all but 4 people out of a group nearly two dozen survive.

Cameron did do a good job of not ever making the Marines seem overpowered, like not being able to fire their pulse rifles in the nest and having not many supplies after the dropship crash. And with the xenomorphs having guns is only really an advantage in an open area, firing at them in enclosed spaces is going to get you a faceful of acid, as Drake finds out.

I like how the xenomorphs adapt to their environment, I think it was in the novelisation for Aliens that its suggested in the abscence of a queen then a "regular" xeno can lay eggs itself to restart the cycle, its why Dallas is cocooned in the original movie in that deleted scene, otherwise they're like bees or ants who have a colony mindset.

Mickeroo · 21-04-2012 01:21PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I think the problem is that guns seem like such a, shall we say, 'lazy' solution. It's a tool that gives the wielder an unfair advantage, in stark contrast to the first film where the lack of tools is what defined the horror. We get so many films and games that are simple blast-a-thons, and the Xenomorph is a creature that initially seemed well beyond mere cannon fodder. If you encountered one, you were more or less ****ed. Introducing guns almost made it too easy.

I doubt many will deny Aliens is a damn good film. But a part of me would love to see a true successor to the original, in film or game form. And watching Colonial Marines - which resembles the countless other gruff space marine simulators we've seen - I can't help but think of the interesting game that could've emerged had they went back to its roots.

Still, better than more AvP nonsense :pac:

I like the AvP games, and the one or two comics I've read, less said about the films the better.
I get what you're saying though, maybe a game a less gung-ho approach could be good alright, I could see more of a survival horror approach working with Alien, something along the lines of Silent Hill. Probably not the best comparison, but you get what i mean.

pixelburp · 21-04-2012 02:09PM

The new Aliens game is a completely wasted opportunity, but for the gung-ho types who just want to fire some pulse rifles, they won't know what the big problem is. But then gaming as a medium is being dumbed down beyond belief & even the old-guard of the Survival Horror genre are being made action-friendly (Resident Evil & Silent Hill)

Guns negate the power of any horror full-stop. Looking outside of the Alien franchise & at horror in general, one of the staple concepts of horror is the feeling of powerlessness & vulnerability. Guns simply can't figure; even in Aliens Cameron had to contrive situations where guns couldn't be used (the reactor), or where their ammo got conveniently destroyed. This is where Aliens was strongest of course.

krudler wrote:

I like how the xenomorphs adapt to their environment, I think it was in the novelisation for Aliens that its suggested in the abscence of a queen then a "regular" xeno can lay eggs itself to restart the cycle, its why Dallas is cocooned in the original movie in that deleted scene, otherwise they're like bees or ants who have a colony mindset.

It has been a while since I saw the deleted scene last, but I gathered that the captured crew were slowly morphing into eggs themselves, answering the question of where the eggs on LV-426 came from. So it's kind of a shame this got abandoned as an idea in favor of a Queen / hive concept, as I thought it a better continuation of sort of body-horror Alien was about

mikhail · 21-04-2012 03:47PM

I think the conversation here about the cost of going from one monster to many is interesting, but for me the big shame is that no one ever explored the true horror of having a bunch of xenomorphs on a ship. I don't care how many guns you have if a little squirt of the blood from one of them can burn through half a dozen decks. In space. It seemed like everyone toned down the acid stuff in all of the sequels because it was just too inconvenient.

johnny_ultimate · 21-04-2012 04:00PM

mikhail wrote: »

I think the conversation here about the cost of going from one monster to many is interesting, but for me the big shame is that no one ever explored the true horror of having a bunch of xenomorphs on a ship. I don't care how many guns you have if a little squirt of the blood from one of them can burn through half a dozen decks. In space. It seemed like everyone toned down the acid stuff in all of the sequels because it was just too inconvenient.

Indeed. After all, didn't a mere drop of alien goop nearly stop the Nostromo mid flight? Sprinkled with bullet holes, a pack of Xenomorphs would have the internal potential to wreak all kinds of technical havoc, and make for some damn fine cinema. A sequel with a crippled spacecraft and full of claustrophobia and hopelessness would be welcome. Really, the lore is not what interests me in the films, but rather the atmosphere. Because, after all, what is Alien really but a very, very good creature feature?

krudler · 21-04-2012 04:12PM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Indeed. After all, didn't a mere drop of alien goop nearly stop the Nostromo mid flight? Sprinkled with bullet holes, a pack of Xenomorphs would have the internal potential to wreak all kinds of technical havoc, and make for some damn fine cinema. A sequel with a crippled spacecraft and full of claustrophobia and hopelessness would be welcome. Really, the lore is not what interests me in the films, but rather the atmosphere. Because, after all, what is Alien really but a very, very good creature feature?

yeah and in Aliens you see where "someone bagged one of Ripley's bad guys" and there's a massive acid burn down through floors and floors of the colony area they're in. Its something they could have used more tbh.

al28283 · 21-04-2012 04:16PM

alien4 had the xeno swimming scene but everything else in it was ****

jpm4 · 21-04-2012 04:21PM

pixelburp wrote: »

Think you're missing my point. As Sad Professor has already said, Cameron changed the nature of the beast & turned the Xenomorph into something it wasn't before. The details aren't really important, I personally thought The xenos were far more effective as the lone terror than the faceless swarm the creatures became in the 2nd movie. It's still a great film (not even going to dignify that part with a defence of my love for the film) but the change to the mythology ultimately damaged the franchise's chops as a horror concept in the long-run.

This kinda assumes that the franchise could have come up with another decent horror style of film. Alien 3 was something of an attempt at that and the results were mixed to say the least. Horror wise you are pretty unlikely to get anything that would trump the original.

krudler · 21-04-2012 04:22PM

I like Alien 3, I think its really underrated, its hard to distance it from the two previous movies and especially after it undoes everything Ripley fights so hard for in the climax of Aliens before the movie is 5 minutes in, but its bleak and atmospheric and the musical score is superb. and tis got Charles Dance, who automatically makes something watchable.

Sad Professor · 21-04-2012 04:23PM

The acid for blood thing was definitely watered down in the sequels, including Aliens. By right the marines should have found it extremely difficult to shoot the drones except from quite some distance. Like Parker said in the first film, "you don't dare kill it".

Teyla Emmagan · 21-04-2012 04:40PM

I love 3, I think it's a great film. Darker and slower, but still really intense. The whole idea of a prison planet is interesting, especially with the strange religious zealotry of the inhabitants. And the ending is great. It's also cool to see them fight the alien without weapons etc. I don't know why it isn't better rated.

And I'm probably one of the very few who also really like 4. I realise it's rubbish in a lot of ways, but I love it. I adore the new Ripley and the crew of the Betty, and I love the queen. The Winona character and the Ripley baby are totally **** though, but I still think it's a really enjoyable movie.

krudler · 21-04-2012 05:07PM

What I didnt like about Resurrection was they went way overboard on the aliens themselves, they all look like they've been dipped in a vat of ky jelly, dripping gunk all over the place, the whole movie has this horrible brown look to it, which I guess was the point since its Jeunet but still, wasnt a fan, looked too generic sci-fi.

Canis Lupus · 21-04-2012 05:30PM

Sad Professor wrote: »

I love Aliens. It's a kick-ass action film and one of the finest sequels ever made. However, it reduced the "perfect organism" of the first film to a bunch of mindless drones that throw themselves in front of machine gun fire. As a result, Cameron pretty much killed the xenomorph for future films. It would never be scary again.

I don't see it like that, for me it's:

Solo alien supreme and intelligent predator ala 1 and 2 (not sure if the Alien in 1 was a queen or not but 3 was wasn't it?)

Aliens was a hive mind directed by the queen. Still supreme imo and the aliens were facing marines with guns. Bit of a difference from 1 with a crew with nothing and likewise a prison in 3.

Alien 3 & 4

Comments