Alien vs Aliens

I commend your bravery @invaderzim42...but......don't like it....your argument I mean. Aside from the fact that 'Aliens' essentially rips its plot structure from 'Alien', which it does most definitely, you're comparing apples to oranges....one is sci-fi/horror....the other is sci-fi/action. The fact that you would put 'Jason X' in the same breath as 'Alien', granted you admit its bad, is just beyond explanation. Yes 'Alien' is an A grade B movie, but in that fact lies what makes it special; that the effort was put in to treat it as a film, a story of quality, had never been done to that extent. Sci-fi stories in the B movie vein were made so by stereotype and thus, had always been relegated to the bargain basement of moviemaking. Dan O'Bannon, Ridley Scott and Brandywine Productions set out to alter that stereotype, to scare the Hell of out of audiences with a man in a rubber suit and make a quality film at the same time with the care and attention any filmmaker gives to any potential Best Picture nominee. The tragedy is they made a film of that calibur and the only reason it would never get that kind of recognition is its genre type. The academy is biased, always has been, always will be and there are just certain movies that are deserving that don't get recognized for what they are because of what they are. 'Alien' layers in its monsters in a way no had done before and not just the alien, but the phantom menace of the heartless corporation as well as the artificial personage of Ash. The film hits you not once, but three times with its threats in such a way as to suffocate you as viewer; as well as layering ending on top of ending. What does 'Aliens' do but take every threat just mentioned and recycle it, lessoning the tension by giving its characters a means to defend themselves; the fact that they're simply overwhelmed by numbers doesn't help the film, it hurts it. 'Alien', from moment one, incubates tension in its audience only to release the pressure valve in its final minute. And that's all I have to say.

I actually agree with you there invader. Yeah its a damn good film, a classic. But it is not the holy shrine... 1. Alien antagonist on board a spaceship. 2. Protagonists killed of one by one. 3. Lone survivor. 4. Dead alien skeleton (now suit). 5. Corporate conspiracy = expendable employees. Non of these ideas were original at the time, they were a dime a dozen in the 60's and the 70's and probably before. On top of that it was Ridleys second ever film, should this film be made now the choices made and direction taken would be completely different. I view Alien as a happy accident were the right people, and 3 morons (brandywine) came together at the right time, in the right place for the right reasons and the result was Alien.

@Craigamore...i totally disagree...how can you say aliens ripped off the plot structure from alien....ummm don't all sequels do that in some form to follow the first film or they wouldn't be a sequels....and Aliens had a richer character development then alien.

Aliens- In spite of what you're about to read, I do enjoy 'Aliens' and it is a classic action film from the Golden Age of 80's action films, but I have my issues with it.....and sorry, but the greatest action film of the 80's is 'Die Hard'........ A sequel, while keeping within the vein of the original, to be worth its own salt, should tell it's own story. There [b][i]IS[/i][/b] a total plot rip from the first film.....travelers in space (marines this time) investigate a deserted complex (the derelict the 1st time), only to find themselves attacked by the alien species, to be unable to escape them, have to improvise a means to defend themselves, plan to use a shuttle for escape (Narcissus the 1st time, drop ship the 2nd), confront the alien (in this case, the queen), escape the exploding atmospheric processor (or Nostromo the 1st time), escape by the skin of their teeth only to have the alien hitch a ride (this time, the queen), have a battle to the death on board the escape vessel and blow (in both cases) the alien out the airlock (which, is ridiculous and unrealistic in the 2nd, because who really believes Ripley would have the strength to pull herself out of an open airlock and do so with no oxygen to breathe, because.....oh, wait.....the vacuum of space would have instantaneously depressurized the Sulaco's loading bay and completely removed every last molecule of air....[b]KILLING EVERYONE[/b] except Bishop)......so there.....there's that.

Also - Cameron altered the canon set up in the first film...'Alien' sets up all the rules as "official". Whenever you write a story, you are setting up the rules of the world you are creating as you go, whether you're aware of them or not. Now, you can bend those rules, but to break them is to ruin the integrity and credibility of the story you're writing. Good writer's understand and respect this principle and also understand and respect that when you take over/work with someone else's material, you're beholden to the rules they set up for the world in which you're working.....and Cameron failed to do this in many respects that we have covered in numerous, previous, threads. As I've written, and I have no idea how many times at this point, Cameron morphed the genre from a sc-fi/horror to a sci-fi/action adventure because it suited his comfort zone.... 'Alien' made it very clear what it was...sc-fi/horror...there's no mistaking that. It's in the movie's DNA, to borrow Ridley's 'Prometheus'-'Alien' characterization. The sequels, starting with 'Aliens', morphed from sc-fi/horror into sc-fi/action adenture. AND BECAUSE CAMERON FELT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH ACTION, not because it suited the material. Cameron and every director that followed (Fincher did come back to horror somewhat), seemed to miss that aspect of the original's identity. 'Alien' is a horror film at its core. And you must look at it that way. A flim's genre is, comparatively, the overriding structure of its individual fingerprint. To alter the genre of a story from one film to its sequels is to rob it of its identity and that, for a storyteller, is basically a sin...it's a bastardization...it's wrong.

@Invaderzim42 You dodged a bullet there !!! Good call !!! B-Movie?.....hmmm jury's out on that one though!!!

"because who really believes Ripley would have the strength to pull herself out of an open airlock and do so with no oxygen to breathe, because.....oh, wait.....the vacuum of space would have instantaneously depressurized the Sulaco's loading bay and completely removed every last molecule of air....KILLING EVERYONE except Bishop)......so there.....there's that." Obviously you have done no research what so ever cause your logic is as flawed as it is in fact wrong...The air would have had to escaped the cargo hold as it was shown in the film...not knowing the cubic feet of cargo space along with still open hatches they could have easily had a few minutes until all the air vacated the cargo hold into space. with this happening Ripley would of had the air escaping to breath like she did...and no strength to pull herself out... adrenalin can make the human body do weird stuff....like letting people lift cars off of people trapped under them.

oh ya and unless i'm wrong....they never showed the alien morphing the crew into eggs in the original....which by your account is cannon...they only showed that years later in the directors cut...so cameron introducing the queen makes that the official cannon on how they reproduce not by morphing

I notice you didn't argue with the plot rip details.....hmmmmmmmmm....but that's ok we can disagree. That's ok...we're all passionate obsessives here. As to your objection to my vacuum of space objection.......[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcFnvULy8zA]How It Should Have Ended: How Aliens Should Have Ended [/url]

No, aliens does not steel the plot of alien, it uses the same plot structure I.E. spaceship, find aliens, get killed off, final destruction scene, second climax with air lock. but the actual plot and/or story is different, by like a lot. James Cameron turned it into action not because he was most comfortable with it, but because he wanted it to be different, he new that alien was already the best sci fi horror movie there was, and he knew no one could top that, so he changed the direction because he wanted to do something different that was, in a way, stand alone. as for the airlock thing, yes its a little ridicules, but does not bother me at all, i can suspend my disbelief for that, and if you are really complaining about that, then why not also complain about where is the gravity coming from in the nostromo? because that's just a ridicules thing to complain about, who cares? and yes, the morphing is not cannon. as much as that would be creepier then the queen idea it was still never shown in the movie and the alien directors cut is stupid, when asked to make it scott said "a director's cut? but the movie WAS the directors cut, there is nothing i would have changed." (that is not an exact quote but that was more or less his reaction) and they just wanted him to do something special so he just added a bunch of crap in including the deleted morphing scene. and as SSgt Fett said, aliens characters and there development is way better then alien. i honestly dont care bout any of the characters in alien, not even Ripley, that is until i saw aliens and became more attached to here as a character, and we learned a little back story. and remember i am not trying to hate on alien, i love the film, i am just stating its not that amazing, and that its very shallow compared to aliens despite everyone saying its the other way around.

"No, aliens does not steel the plot of alien, it uses the same plot structure I.E. spaceship, find aliens, get killed off, final destruction scene, second climax with air lock. but the actual plot and/or story is different, by like a lot. " You realize that makes absolutely no sense, right? using the same plot structure is stealing the plot...that's the function of the word steal....to take what isn't yours to begin with and use it, thus "the actual plot and/or story is" [b]NOT[/b] different. "i am just stating its not that amazing, and that its very shallow compared to aliens despite everyone saying its the other way around," @invaderzim42...we can disagree on that...shallow, 'Alien' is definitely not, but whatever.......at least it's good to have a place we can debate this stuff and not take it personally.

people, people... Planet of the vampires...

no you are misunderstanding me, let me write it clearer for you: the story of alien: a crew of 7 people on a mining ship are awakened half way on there way home to investigate a signal, they drop down, and one of the crew members is attacked by some sort of parasite. they come back on board, a monster bursts out of his chest then goes and kills the crew members off one by one, they find out they were sent to retrieve this monster purposely by "the company" they all die but one character, Ripley. the story of aliens: Ripley is waken up 57 years later to find that everything she knew is now gone and is deemed crazy and looses her job, meanwhile there is now a colony on the planet from the first movie, they come across the same monsters and are all killed but one. Ripley is sent back as an adviser with a group of marines. they investigate and find the one survivor, a little girl. they get attacked by the aliens and are stranded on the planet. while waiting for rescue Ripley and the girl bond more and almost become mother and daughter. then they find out that the place is going to explode and they need to get out of there, so they come up with a plan, the aliens attack again killing most of them, but they escape, Ripley goes back to save the girl, runs into the queen, then gets away. ok, now in what way are they the same? as i said earlier there are similar elements, but the 2 biggest ones don't come until the end, them being the climatic explosion, and the airlock thing. but if aliens can really be called "a rip off" for that, then alien should also be considered a rip off for taking things from older movies such as "the thing from another world" and "IT the terror from beyond space" but really it was just a homage, and that's what those elements in aliens was, a homage. plus its the sequel to alien so it really cant be called a rip off. get me? and don't worry, i am not actually fighting with you lol, i just like to debate things and like you said, this is the place to do it :)

i seriously just wrote this huge thing, and it took me so long that when i posted it the page had to reload and i was signed out, so now i need to re type it >:(

I feel this debate will forever go on in forums but for me the whole appearance of the space jockey in alien, and the fact it wasn't explained in the film makes it way deeper than aliens although aliens itself did give more character development that doesn't equate to deep. intrigue, and mystery, and endless supposition /questioning does for me.

It always seems that ALIEN & ALIENS are always debated against each other for being the best in the series while ALIEN 3 & ALIEN RESURRECTION are always debated against each other for being the worst in the series some Only consider ALIEN to be THE ONLY film in the series while others try to say that ALIEN and ALIENS are the only films in the series while others try to defend the fact that the ALIEN series is only a Trilogy including only ALIEN, ALIENS & ALIEN 3 and not a "Quadrilogy", including ALIEN RESURRECTION which some even consider a spin off. while You only have a few that can accept all 4 films. Its an ENDLESS AND INFINITE debate I see ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the time over Youtube, IMDB, and Forums. I've always liked reading and listening to everyones opinions. Its alot fun. I'm happy were able to, when we are able to, "agree to disagree". But lets face it, this debate over the entire Saga will never end. the first film was knowing the new fear the second was conquering that fear the third was conquering fear of death and the fourth was becoming that fear

Interesting point Ripley Clone 8

@ ripley clone 8 i do like the quadrilogy and appreciate them for what they are now. When 3 came around i was hoping for a complete new direction for the franchise and i wanted to see the films move away from ripleys struggle and saga. Again there was always this view from the studio that ripley was integral to any sequel i just never saw the films that way i was wondering about those xeno's home world and the jockey from the start and i was amazed that it was never picked up earlier in the franchise. With a little imagination it wouldn't have been that difficult to come up with a whole new direction for the franchise much earlier, even if it never involved the space jockey origins, there were, and are, all kinds of scenarios the franchise could have taken. At last we are going to get that direction but its a shame in one sense its attached to a prequel and not to a sequel.

alteredstate, I almost look at that aspect as a kind of rewind, as though should we individually choose, the rest can be forgotten. If 'Prometheus' is what we hope it will be, then that's certainly possible.

yes craigamore on the other hand the film may indeed open up the franchise to a whole new set of ideas and reboot a new franchise that takes and branches of in directions none of us can yet comprehend .

Exactly what I'm hoping for alteredstate

[quote]people, people... Planet of the vampires...[/quote] LOL Snork :-P I'm going to put my 2 cents in here......... Alien is great. Still makes me think even to this day. Aliens was good for a scary sci-fi action romp, but I didn't like that the Aliens were relegated to intergalactic ants. Alien 3 I'm coming to respect more since David FIncher was basically hamstrung by the studio with where he wanted to go with it from day 1. If he'd been allowed to do what he wanted, I think it had the potential to be as good as the original. Unfortunately, studio suits juat wanted to make sure they made money by sticking to a formula and I hate the CGI alien. It's very very obvious. Alien Desecration tried to be the original with fancy CGI and a ridiculous plot bringing Ripley back from the dead. Even went as far as having the Newborn sucked out the airlock after Ripley's clone threw her acid blood on the airlock window. I mean, fucking seriously? They would have been FAR better off trying to find out where the Derelict came from for a 4th. Ridiculous through and through. *gets popcorn to watch the battle*

I agree craigamore and alteredstate. You know the first 4 films in the franchise are in a way "one string" of the whole encompassing scope of the ALIEN UNIVERSE. We discovered the xenomorph and we got a small hint/glimpse at where they may of came from. There's just so much mystery and unknown to the world of ALIEN. The first 4 films are simply "Ripley's" story. But thats only her story. We could find other stories to investigate. Different characters to explore and even like Alteredstate said. We could definitely find out more about the Space jockeys, the Alien origins, the Weyland-Yutani Corporate cover-up and the other bio-weapons that the Space Jockey's created and even different locations. GOD I just excite myself thinking about it lol. There's just SOOOO much. Its just immense and the story of ALIEN is intensely robust and full of excitement. There's just so many directions the series could go. You know I really hope Prometheus isn't the end. We as fans have waited so long for a sequel or prequel. We've had to solider through all this AVP and Predator garbage but now we finally got something. After 33 years of pondering the Alien origins and after 15 years of waiting for a follow up we definitely deserve it and I can't wait!

Heyyyyyyy I like Predator, Predator 2 and Predators as their own series :-P Avp and that other thing were just fucking retarded :-D

right on rc8 the game has just begun.

Totally agree Cypher! Predator is its own standalone franchise and I enjoy it but from what I ment is, we as fans have been waiting the longest for an Alien film of any kind. We've just kind of just had to sit back and watch as studios fuck up and wait for them to learn their lesson. I mean it took them 2 AVP films to fuck up and decide that they would rather go back to the original Alien and Predator franchises. Predators by the way was really good. I enjoyed that movie. But its just ridiculous how money thirsty these studios can be and how stupid they can be by doing it.

Well said on that last post Ripley Clone 8

Hear, hear! I'm sure that if they had some originality in these things they would make a BUTTLOAD more money! Because there are actually a lot of intelligent people out there that would happily fork over money for a good story as well as explosions and boobies! In short, I would pay for a well crafted movie experience.

Oh and craigamore I agree with you regarding Die Hard ;-)

Exactly Cypher....greatest action film EVER.............

I don't think there has been a bad Die Hard movie yet. The 5th looks interesting too :-D just hope it stays true to the series so far!

Zim: That took some serious balls. Starting something like that on here is like... Well... "starting something like that on here." Craigamore: absolutely brilliant arguments for defending your point of view. Snork: lmaorof! Everyone else: thanks for playing nice. This kind of post can get ugly fast. Glad to see this place is a class act!... (thanks BH!) PS. RC8, I think you and I may be the closest in thought on this one. All 4 films belong in the alien universe and I like the way you gave them each a specific purpose in the overall story. Now... Let's see in 89 days how they all began!

Wow...I had no idea there was a 5th......shows how much I've been obsessed about 'Prometheus'.

Thanks db...I try

It's being filmed at the moment, only just started too, I think it's going around the world this time ;-)

Mind is blown....wasn't sure that had any legs left...guess I'm wrong.

I'm also gonna' throw in my 2 cents about the studio shirts whom we all seem to equally despise... 2 of my former students stopped by my (teaching) studio recently. One is successful in the Indy market and has recently produced a cool little web series under consideration from some decent TV media outlets. The other optioned out of being the youngest Dev. Exec. of a major studio after 3 years to go back to writing. It should be noted that neither of them are older than 30. The later young man told me yesterday that he returned to writing because he was tired of the sub-par ideas he's been privy to in development these last few years. I think this speaks volumes. If major studios are receiving say, 3000 scripts a year and are only buying say, 100... And are only actually making say, 10... That should tell you something. There's apparently a lot of crap floating around LA. Personally, I've read some stories from you guys that would rival some of the best stuff that 's coming up from Hollywood. Remember, it's a lot cheaper for them to run an established franchise into the ground than try and create something fresh... Damn the torpedoes... And the fans.

One more thing invaderzim42...as to this..."as for the airlock thing, yes its a little ridicules, but does not bother me at all, i can suspend my disbelief for that, and if you are really complaining about that, then why not also complain about where is the gravity coming from in the nostromo? because that's just a ridicules thing to complain about, who cares?" There are two entirely different logic paths being followed here...and there's no substantive basis for comparison. First, In 'Alien', gravity generation on the Nostromo is an assumed technology that has no further bearing on the plot of the story other than the fact that it obviously exists. The concept of gravity generation bends the physical rules as we currently understand them, but does not break them as it unprovable as to whether it is plausible or not. Second, the moment a film allows its audience to break its suspension of disbelief it loses credibilty. This is even more dangerous in science fiction, where audiencies are being asked to take a leap to begin with. The climax of 'Aliens' with its airlock miracle of Ripley pulling herself out is, as you admit, a little ridiculous. In this case, rules of physics are not simply bent, they're shattered. SSgt Fett argued that, "not knowing the cubic feet of cargo space along with still open hatches they could have easily had a few minutes until all the air vacated the cargo hold into space." No amount of oxygen on a ship of any size would be a large enough quantity to fight the immense force of the vacuum of the entire void of space, which is immeasurable by the way. The kind of force that vaccum generates with that kind of size behind it does not allow for such a minute amount of oxygen to last any reasonable length of time greater than a split second - especially considering the size of that freaking airlock - we're not talking about a pinhole here. Physically, the concept is impossible. Instant depressurization in space means no air.....all gone, just like that.............all that being said, this is no minor oversight. It is so ridiculous as to cheapen the entire film.....as in any other action film when a stunt or explosion appears stupidly over the top or impossible, it gives the audience an excuse to break suspension of that disbelief and it [b][i]should[/i][/b] lose self respecting movie goers at that point. This is the kind of thing that usually makes people roll their eyes and it should. For it to happen in an Alien film is pathetic, especially considering the first film takes the time and effort for its lead to put on a suit so that she won't die in the process of blowing the airlock. As to your last question....I care, because I expect more of my filmmakers. I expect them to respect our intelligence as an audience enough not to ask us to buy impossible moments like that. There's a big difference between stretching what's possible and slapping us in the face with the assumption we're too stupid to care.

a movie does not need to follow reality to be good, have you ever seen Walle? one of my favorite movies ever, and it breaks reality more times then i can count.

Movies don't have to follow accepted reality. They establish their own, but when the reality they establish requires an acceptance of the basic laws of physics, then it [b]must[/b] adhere to the rules it establishes, both intentionally and unintentionally, or else it it loses its credibility. That's an immoveable foundation of sound writing. Writing establishes a story's rules in the course of it being written. The act of writing forces a writer to intentionally formalize the world in which he or she is telling their story. The process of writing also results in the rules being established unintentionally. Good writers are aware of both circumstances; they know when it is appropriate to bend them and that he or she should never break them. The Alien saga assumes in its story telling that its physical universe applies and is bound to the laws of physics as far as they are known to this point. No one can fly, no one can breath in space and no one has magical powers. It is accepted and understood that human beings are as fragile and susceptable in that universe as they are in our own. It also follows that the laws governing matter in it's various forms and their relation to the forces of the vacuum of space are accepted in that universe as in ours. Again, breaking that basic level of understanding about something as simple as the dangers of an open airlock in space is [b][i]INSULTING and OFFENSIVE[/i][/b] to intelligent viewership of the moviegoing public. No, "movies do not need to follow reality to be good," but only in as far as it applies to a movie such as 'Alice In Wonderland' where the point is to defy accepted physical reality rather than to operate within it as the Alien franchise asks us to do at a basic, substantive level.