New Replies (Page 4,789)

Good point centaurian_slug....while I can enjoy those sequels (I'll give them that), I just can't put them anywhere near the same class as 'Alien'...They just don't measure up and no amount of rhetorical apology will change that.

she dosnt have to look scared to be scared... and i dont think that guy was trying to make himself look like a idiot. hew proboubly knew ripley was scared or just wanted to make fun of her, cause in the begining, after they all wake up he has a conversation with another marine like this: Who is she? they say she saw a alien. Well woop-dey dooo! see? he was just messin with her

i think what made "Aliens" so um " great " is that is basically a dumbed down, xeroxed version of ALIEN. the stories may have different characters, but if you line up both the plot points side by side, "Aliens" is a reductive version of ALIEN instead of "truckers" in space, you've got "soldiers" in space, instead of Ripley saving Jones the cat, she saves Newt the terra-formers daughter instead of Ripley suiting up in a clean pressure suit at the end of the film, Ripley suits up into a dirty power-loader, alien clinging to the airlock doorway and all (rolls eyes) if you want to see "what makes Aliens so great" - - you need only watch ALIEN, ALL the answers are there, and ALL told on such a better / slicker / artistic / enigmatic / cinematic story not to say the actors who played the roles in "Aliens" didn't do a great job, nor to say that Cameron didn't do a great duplicate plot, in the from of a "kick-ass action flick" ALIEN is the sole key to "Aliens" success, not the other way around,

As a kid, I LOVED ALIENS and still love it. For the obvious reasons, action weapons marines and fighting. Alien was good but could not great. NOW that I am older, I see the brilliance of Alien. Dark, scary, cold, harsh, your inner most fear of being alone, by yourself and defenseless. To me, they are both great movies for different reasons and enjoy them every time I see them.

God Bless ya shardy....

I LOVE every film in the series Alien, Aliens, Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection. I will never truly know why people hate on Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection. I know reasons as to why but I will never know TRULY why they hate these films through their own eyes. Alien 3 to me was a very powerful film. Charles S. Dutton's character Dylon I felt was one of the most emotionally exhausting, inspiring and bold characters in the entire series. Charles Dance was fucking awesome as Clemons and Sigourney Weaver was incredible as always. David Fincher was able to pull out deep and penetrating character moments from the film. I think the film itself is overwhelmingly powerful. It was Ripley's dark epic journey into the pits of hell. She's lost everyone and now she has to make a fighting stand. You really felt for Ripley because she had been through so much and you knew she was going to have to face her demise but she wanted to leave her last mark on humanity. She wants to rid the universe of the evil that has been haunting her all her life. And that I think was such a powerful and emotional concept David was able to pull out of the film. The acting was fantastic and it was about the humans coming to terms with death. It was darker and more gritty. The story was powerful and intense and Ripley was a heroine. Her death was internally shocking yet awesome. Alien Resurrection was epic on a whole other level. We knew and trusted Ripley in the last 3 films but now in Alien Resurrection we see Ripley as a darker, evil and more unpredictable character which I thought added more mystery to the series. She was THE Alien in the story. It was awesome to see after hundreds of years have gone by that she was now accepted as part of the "family" to the Aliens. She had bonded with them. Ripley was strange and untrustworthy, she had the liking of Ripley but had the persona of an Alien. That I think gave her character a depth that added so much to the series. Her coming back I think served justice because she was able to show how her nightmare was no different in the past than it was in the dark distant future. The military was willing to retrieve the Alien in any way shape or form just like Weyland-Yutani. When Ripley faced her aborted clones it sickened you and made you feel that what the scientist were doing was clearly wrong. They weren't simply gags but they were emotionally charged. When I saw that scene when Ripley was in the nest it symbolically shows her sinking down into the world of the Aliens. Alien Resurrection was completely different. Ripley was different, the setting was different and the Aliens had conceived a whole new Alien, the newborn. The genetic fuck ups were terrifying, dark, creepy and melodic. And ultimately I felt Alien Resurrection really did leave a deep dark terrifying groove into the series.

alien and aliens are two entirely different films regardng their tone...i dont know how aliens is dumbed down in any way...sigourney weaver won an oscar for her role as ripley. i guess elitest snobs see action in a movie and declare it to be dumbed down. the special effects were amazing, the setting was just as terrifying as alien, but they are two very different flms. alien is all horror and giger's influence predominates the film..whereas aliens is a thrill ride and a horror flm

Before anyone else snips in in this is a perfect lesson in humility, back then I was so sure I was right and then i was proved wrong. Happens to the best of us.

Scott's been ignored what about goddamn DONALD SUTHERLAND, where the hell is his oscar!

Screw the oscars! They are just political and fake. Scott is one heck of a director and the best film maker out there, he needs no stinking oscar!!

your right of course cain but a lifetime in the industry you would think some form of recognition would be honoured i never new poor old donald had been snubbed to snorky

Yeah, not 1... hell he deserved one for the end of Invasion of the bodysnatchers... [img]http://www.shadowlocked.com/images/stories/features/invasion/Sutherland_scream_Invasion_Of_The_Body_Snatchers_Kaufman_1978.jpg[/img]

I know..I mean he was in "Sense and Sensibility"..I mean come on man! That deserves a nod! I am on a quest now to start a movement for Donald....

He will ! For THIS FILM ! No question in my mind he will and I haven't even seen it yet. BY the way, neither have you, lmao. Not even Frantz has yet. lmao.

loved him in mash and he was great in jfk, dont look now he should of got sexiest man for that.

I would think winning an Oscar would signify that the industry signals Prometheus is made for the masses...and not made for the true fans of the genre. There are not many films I would classify as sci fi that have won oscars except for visual design/effects. If sci fi can't win best picture...unlikely a sci fi will ever win best director. And to be truthful...I don't think Ridley would even care. He is a true artist and not into deviating from each of the genres he has crafted so well. From filmsite website: Science-fiction films don't win the Best Picture award, although they have often dominated in the Visual and Special Effects technical categories in recent years. Unheard of, two science-fiction films were nominated for Best Picture in 2009 (although there were 10 nominees): District 9 (2009) and Avatar (2009), and Inception (2010) was nominated the following year. There were only a few nominated science-fiction films before 2009, such as A Clockwork Orange (1971), Star Wars (1977) or E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982).

time for a change in attitude then methinks but again you are right klaatu i just think ridleys getting a bit long in the tooth and it would be nice to see him gain the respect from his peers he should of received years ago.

History parentesis ... how far have fell the islamic civilization today is not an excuse for historical errors ...the Saladin was a great commander and surely more compassionate than many chrstian leaders ...he did spare almost all the christian population of JErusalem ...and he did pay personally for the liberation of the poorest ones ... we know what happen to the islamic population of jerusalem after the first crusade . returning to ridley scott ...well alien and Bladerunner deserved that oscar

yes two of his best films without doubt im sceptical on commenting on historical films in terms of accuracy cos its all so objective and Theoretical even historians cant agree on the truth half the time . Essentially all films even based on reality are attempts at entertainment and virtually all take artistic licence unless your dealing in documentary.

Ridley only said it's a suit. He never even mentions what type. We assume bio-mechanical because that plays into Giger's designs. If it is a suit I will agree it can't be fossilized. As was already mentioned there needs to be an organcic element to become fossilized. However if it is bio-mechanical then there is your organic element. Bio is short for biological right? As for the time to become fossilized. Does Ridley mention in his interviews that only 30 years (or so) has past? Does he mention that it is the same derelict in Prometheus as in Alien? Call it hokey, but would anyone put it past Hollywood to try some crazy wormhole crap. I agree Ridley Scott is an excellent director and a true visionary, but I caution putting him up on a pedastol until the movie is released. A few years ago a lot of bloggers bowed down at the alter of sci-fi to worship another director that was making pre-quels. I have 3 words for how they turned out. Jar Jar Binks.

@ Snorkelbottom I am not sure I understand your statement. What evidence are you referring to, and what idea is it pointing in favor of?

@ Rakkasan - You said you would like the Space Jockeys to be portrayed as nice, benign. What I was referring to is that it seems in Prometheus that the opposite is what we see, evidenced by mutations, instant pregnancies a derelict supposedly on course for Earth. Its possible that in Prometheus the SJ's start out as benign but our actions and motives tip their mood in the opposite direction, thus unleashing their wrath.

Actually I said I like the idea of them being nice, only because it's an idea that had not been discussed previously. Not because I think that it's true. I would hardly consider the little spoonfulls of information we currently have to go off of as evidence. I have seen numerous movies that were nothing like the previews. Heck we don't even have a script to go off of. You make the assumption that instant pregnancies (no clear proof that it's instant in what we have seen) mutation, and the derelict on course for Earth (again no proof of that) could all be caused by humans. There is nothing in the trailer or anything else we have seen that it's all the SJs doing it. After all the cast does mention mercenaries. I know this for certain, you don't spend money on mercenaries unless you plan to use them. Of course I am making the assumption that they're human mercenaries and not SJ mercenaries. Could I be right or you? Hard to say, but the evidence as you have pointed out supports both our cases, and I like to think that old Ridley will throw us a curve ball we never even considered.

@ Rakkasan... You originally said you'd like the idea of the jockeys being nice, which I refered to saying "[i]You said you would like the Space Jockeys to be portrayed as nice, benign[/i]" and then you correct me by saying [b]Actually I said I like the idea of them being nice[/b].... why are you correcting me????????????????? 1. The pregnancy looks pretty instant in the leaked trailer (like a balloon attached to a hosepipe) 2. The Mutant guy doesn't look to friendly to me, but if you wanna play with go right ahead. 3. So if the Derelicts not a threat why do make it crash again? 4. No evidence SJ's doing bad stuff against us - The Derelict for one, are all them eggs for Easter. 5. Human Mercenaries as in part of the crew, SJ Mercenaries there has been no such mention of the thing.

I am correcting you because there is a significant difference between saying I like something and I like an idea. Personally if the movie was nice SJs and evil humans it would be preachy (like Avatar). However, the IDEA is cool because it forces us to think in different ways. 1. Yes it does, but no proof it was caused by the SJs. 2. Again mutant guy doesn't look friendly, but we don't know if the crew did that to him. Remember in Alien Ash was protecting the Alien. What if one of the androids was doing something similar here. 3. Who said we were forcing it to crash? We see 2 ships crashing into eachother, but we do not know the motive. What if the mercenaries or rogue android took control of the derelict and that's why? 4. Again where's the evidence the SJs put them there? We know in Alien at least on SJ was a victim of a chestburster. Its quite possible that whatever put all those eggs in the ship came from that SJ. 5. That was my point. There is not mention of SJ mercenaries so they must be human. I never heard of mercenaries doing humanitarian work so I must assume they do bad things. Which leads me to the main point of POSSIBLY the humans are evil and the SJs are not. It's just a theory.

@Snorkelbottom, I'd suggest that #3 depends on the motive of who crashes the ship. And #4 is a bloody good point. But how do the eggs even survive the crash? Then there's the premise of the sequel. It's going to be a very short trip sending humans to a planet full of hostiles...

@ Rakkasan... So let me get this straight, we travel god knows how far to a distant planet to learn the truth of our origins. We get there and meet a nice race of elephant/blue men that extend us every courtesy. In return we force one of our own crew to become inflated like a whoopee cushion, turn another of our crew into a mutant, infect our nice aliens with our own developed secret weapon the facehugger, and in the process kill most of our own crew. Yeah Okay. BTW mercenaries are not necessarily bad, they are hired guns - they do what they are paid to do. Which can be killing, but can also be protection. Have you not seen Man On Fire.

Glad to read some new theories, and I agree we havn't gotten enough info to be sure of much yet. Ridley did say he wanted to explore the story of the space Jockey. He titled the movie Prometheus, which is the name of the Greek God who tried to help mankind. So, I'm inclined to think the jockey is a good guy - otherwise he might have named the movie after another Greek god, "Polyphemus, the terrible Cyclops who imprisons men and eats them alive."

I subscribe to the school of thought that a human dons the SJ suit and melds into the cockpit in order to disengage the Derelict from auto-pilot and crash it, thereby stopping it from reaching Earth, before succumbing to a chestburster. How we get to this point, I've yet to formulate myself. But the SJ suit and human being do not fit together!, I hear you proclaim. However, perhaps the suit is like a magic glove: one-size fits all. In otherwords, the suit grows to fit around the occupant. Why not?

@ Snorkelbottom, Your obvious Disney-esque analogy aside I would say yes. Would you not agree that Weyland plays a key role in this movie (the company not the person)? We see the logo everywhere. Well we know in Alien they went there on company orders, Ash was working for the company to protect it. Although not canan, but in the Dean Foster book, Dallas confronts Ash after Kane's death and accuses him of knowing the facehugger left something in his body. You see it in the MRI/Xray. To which Ash responds that yes he knew that something was left in Kane, but not what it would do. In Aliens, Burke who worked for the company sent them to the derelict and didn't even warn them. Alien3 the company did everything they could to get a hold of Ripley or the specimen, killing one of the prisoners that got in the way. Alien Resurrection used Ripley DNA and made numerous clones without regard for human life, and paid MERCENARIES to highjack a civilian transport to use as hosts. Even in AVP Charles Bishop had to stake his claim at all costs, even his health. All I am saying is there is plenty of examples in the other movies where humans are portrayed as the real monsters "at least you don't see them fucking eachother over for a percentage". As for Man on Fire, do the ends justify the means? Yes he was looking for the girl, but putting a timed explosive up a mans ass seems a little extreme to me.

I'm sorry I dont buy it. IMO the Jockeys are neither good nor evil, their indifferent, selfish, arrogant, vain etc. A species that supposedly created life on earth or helped mankinds development is what we've been told. Gods, in biomechanical elephant suits. Who gave them right to do such things, why do they do such things, why create us and then leave instructions on where to find them, what do they want, what is their agenda. Evil belies evil, and I think we can all agree the Alien is evil. Yeah I agree the humans will be shown in a bad light, as usual, but Space Jockeys are far, far, far away from being nice.

In the movie "The independence day" the alien's had a bio-suit on them...... This will be the case of SJ aswell Alien in suit:- [img]http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww105/habid_m/20021-1.jpg[/img] [img]http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww105/habid_m/alien.jpg[/img] Alien without suit:- [img]http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww105/habid_m/id4_american_gallery.jpg[/img] Aliens Universe : Independence Day Homeworld : Unknown Habitat : Earth-like Size : Shorter than Humans (natural) ~8 feet tall (in biosuit) Diet : Unknown Language : Telepathic Sapience Level : Sapient Subspecies : Unknown Physically, they are no more durable than a Human, but they do possess far superior technology, including enormous fleets of ships; defense fields to prevent missiles from reaching their ships' hulls; highly destructive weaponry and protective biomechanical suits. The aliens have a slender, quasi-humanoid body with three-jointed limbs and only two digits on their hands and feet. Their head is enlarged. They have large, pupil-less eyes (or eye-like organs) and a number of long, grasping tentacles protruding from their suits' backs. Lacking both ears and vocal chords, they communicate using a sophisticated form of telepathy. They are also able to control other beings, at least partially, by attaching tentacles to their necks. They apparently do this in order to communicate with non-telepathic species. They travel around the galaxy in a single, massive Mothership that is around 550km in diameter. This ship can deploy numerous smaller, city-sized spacecraft. When invading an inhabited planet, the aliens' military tactics consist of large-scale attacks, destroying the major cities around the globe simultaneously and then heading to the next largest, presumably going on until there is nothing left. This species breathes oxygen and requires similar environmental conditions to humans, which is the reason why they got interested on Earth in first place. Although a single alien ship crashed on Roswell in 1947, the real invasion only started in 1996. At the end, the aliens were defeated and possibly driven to extinction thanks to the creation of a computer virus which temporarily removed the alien ships' shields, followed by a devastating nuclear attack on their orbiting mothership.

[quote]did we not always know this? Were you ever in doubt? [/quote] I don't know about him, but I [i]do[/i] have doubts that what we see in the trailer is, in fact, the "derelict" crashing on LV426.

Neither Gears of War 3, I have a gnasher shell with all your names on it.

Well i am not sure hahahaha i love both, but i have been playin halo since i was like 7 or 8 but call of duty is super fun. i dont know what to pic!

You should enjoy both....its easy.

mmm has james cameron really got a more impressive filmography then ridley he may have had more box office success but ridleys films have had more impact on me anyway. kinda like comparing led zeppelin with kiss lol . i'm in the led zep camp .

@ perfect organism i think gale hurds quite saucy i wouldn't kick her out of bed lol

Perfect Organims: deleted xeno sex scene at end of Alien? WHAT?