The Alien movies.

[Paladin Solo]

Terminator 2: Idiotic, if enjoyable, action film.

For some people. I tend to like T2 because of the whole "do machines have feelings?" or "can you love a machine?" or "does a machine have a personality?" or my personal favourite, "does a machine deserve to exist more than a human?"

Anyways, The Empire Strikes Back > A New Hope

 

[alec]

Anyways, The Empire Strikes Back > A New Hope

True dat.
And The Godfather Part 2 was better than the original as well, IMO.

 

[Smoke_Jaguar]

Stag, for once you are alone in your opinions since the damn religion threads.

KQX confirms with documented material what I have mentioned in my post, and so do others.

I'm sure you have sidewatched the movie, or watched it to have a laugh with friends or I really don't know what, but there were not all that many archtypes in that movie.

From the dropship female pilot to the corporatist birocratic Burke (which totally reminds me of Pete Hines), characters are the way they should be. There is no black guy added for flavour, and no woman either, like in the original. The twitchy girl that fails to push "ze button" or the ever present "only black guy among all whites that is there to be the black guy among whites" (now that's an archtype). No stupid cat either, since Repley ditches Jonesy on Gateway. You get to see her daughter too, so that more than explains how much Cameron wanted to create a good quality sequel. Scott and Cameron make similar movies, all drama and big budgets, so it can't be that bad.

As another poster noted, it's a documented fact the grunts want to be reminiscent of the vietnam marines, how they dropped and thought they had it all when shit hit the fan and they encountered a much smarter and cunning enemy then they hoped.

And for the action part, of course it had to have action, the movie stayed true to everything the original had but changed place, character and situations, without ditching what made it good.

And for your information, it's documented as a Sci-Fi Combat Horror Movie.

 

[Stag]

I don't feel like talking about this right now, it's going to bum out my Transformers high, so I'll say this for now:

Aliens was a movie for people who don't like to think. At all.

 

[Smoke_Jaguar]

bum out my Transformers high

Aliens was a movie for people who don't like to think

Spot on. You truly are the king of refrences!

 

[Stag]

Heh. Transformers was amazing. And look, I said it already, I don't dislike Aliens at all, I just think that it's not as good as the first. And to my point, I don't think Transformers is better than, say, Babel. It was a great action movie, and it made me crazily nostalgic, but I'm not nominating it for a best picture award.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Stag: Just shut up. Shut. Up.

You've gotten the point across, you prefer Alien to Aliens, I think everybody's cool with that. But when you slag off Aliens for the exact same reasons that made Alien great, you show yourself to be more of a body cavity than "an elitist"...which to me is pretty much the same thing, BTW.

Alien and Aliens both had 45+ minutes of character development, yet you think Aliens wasted its time with developing theirs. What do people generally remember about the characters in Alien? Ripley, through and through. Oh, and one of them was a robot that had its head ripped off. Although the other characters aren't memorable, they are good (except for Lambert, who is only there to fulfull the "panicky female" archetype, Seriously, she does nothing in the film).

In Aliens? Ripley, the scarred survivor forced to revisit her nightmares. Burke, the corporate asshole. Hudson, the gung-ho marine that goes yella when shit happens (and happens to have half the memorable quotes of the film). Newt, the girl who said "they mostly come out at night. Mostly." Oh, and one of them was a robot that was ripped in half. Spectacularly. Aliens has more throwaway characters, but do you think that proves your point

Aliens actually "wins" at character development, but that is partially due to the longer screentime.

Aliens is stupid but Alien isn't? What kind of space crew goes venturing into the Great Unknown unarmed? Especially when their contract demands them to respond to emergency signals? That is the epitome of stupidity, isn't it? Aliens? The only stupid things I can recall is first, when they sent all the marines at once into the Athmosphere Processor, instead of sending only one in and keeping the other one as back-up. The second is how the queen got onboard the shuttle. Two small ones compared to one big one. Who wins?

You could say the film was more about Ripley's life in space, and the issues that arise between people closely-knit group that is in a constant exposure to fear? Which film even mentions that Ripley has a daughter? Is it Alien? No. Is it Aliens? In the Special Edition, yes.

Closely-knit group in a constant state of fear? What else do you call a demoralized group of combat-trained marines? A good 20 minutes of Aliens is devoted to answering this very question. They do the exact same thing as the Nostromo crew: They regroup, deal with the morale issue and come up with a plan. To win. To survive.

Based on what I've read, I'm forced to restate the question asked previously: Are you sure you've even seen Aliens?

 

[Stag]

The point is that Aliens had boring characters which I could've seen in any other action movie. Hell, maybe a lot of action character archetypes were based off of them, but they weren't even that good in the first place.

There's no need to be so pissy and starting character attacks. Jesus. I'm not attacking Aliens (and why should you care so damn much if I do?), I'm just trying to point out its flaws when compared to it's predecessor.

They were basically space truckers. They weren't expecting to be attacked by Xenomorphs, that point is ridiculous. Also, I'm certain that Weyland-Yutani would have had regulations against their crews being armed-especially since they were being setup to be killed off, or at least had the option of being killed off by the onboard robut. So, the fact that they were not armed makes more sense than if they were.

Aliens omg it talked about Ripley's daughter. Yeah, because she was dead. She wasn't dead in the first one. She wasn't even a character. She was essentially retconned in. If the character had been thought of, or wanted in in Alien, they could've and would've included her. She just wasn't a character. She did not exist.

The quotes in Aliens were fucking ridiculous. "Game over man, game over!" Wow, I've had the same emotional response to losing a game of Galaga (and had much the same text fly at me.). Aliens had boring and stupid lines. Maybe that's because they were focusing on boring and stupid characters?

 

[Paladin Solo]

The point is that Aliens had boring characters which I could've seen in any other action movie. Hell, maybe a lot of action character archetypes were based off of them, but they weren't even that good in the first place.

...

Maybe that's because they were focusing on boring and stupid characters?

As compared to a bunch of civilians doing the everday norm? No character in the movie Alien could've made it the movie without the alien. Sure, you could make it about an android that goes haywire, but then it wouldn't be Alien, would it?

There's no need to be so pissy and starting character attacks. Jesus. I'm not attacking Aliens (and why should you care so damn much if I do?), I'm just trying to point out its flaws when compared to it's predecessor.

Coming from the person who claims "Aliens was for people who don't like to think."? With that asinine comment, and the victimising, you just took away all merit from your argument, again.

Aliens omg it talked about Ripley's daughter. Yeah, because she was dead. She wasn't dead in the first one. She wasn't even a character. She was essentially retconned in. If the character had been thought of, or wanted in in Alien, they could've and would've included her. She just wasn't a character. She did not exist.

Alien was not about Ripley's past. It's not Ridley Scott's Ripley, it's Ridley Scott's Alien. (Remember kids, earlier on Stag was remarking how Aliens is pretty much about Ripley's life in space.) Just because we knew very little of her in the first movie, doesn't mean further character development is unjustified. Also, your argument is weak.

The quotes in Aliens were fucking ridiculous. "Game over man, game over!" Wow, I've had the same emotional response to losing a game of Galaga (and had much the same text fly at me.). Aliens had boring and stupid lines. Maybe that's because they were focusing on boring and stupid characters?

...

I'm not attacking Aliens (and why should you care so damn much if I do?), I'm just trying to point out its flaws when compared to it's predecessor.

It's only flawed to some people. You shouldn't really care what others think how good Aliens was, since you yourself stated "why should you care so damn much if I do?"

Also, holy shit, Stag, you have some pathetic arguments.

I am of the firm belief that anyone who thinks that "Aliens" is better than the obviously superior original is an idiot with no taste.

More nonsense from the village idiot.

Aliens was t3h suck. Aliens was not a good movie. It was a good action movie.

Opinion.

Aliens was excellent science fiction, it was actually a good movie.

Contradicting opinion.

Aliens was for people who couldn't be bothered with "suspense".

Yet another idiotic statement. Generalisation, assumption, unintelligent observation, and unrationalised analysis. You're not writing a book are you?

In Alien, you don't see the fully formed xenomorph until about the fifty minute mark or even later. Really, you could say that the movie wasn't about an alien so much as it was about Ellen Ripley's life in space, and the issues that arise between people when in close quarters for months at a time (years?), and how they react when they are in a constant state of fear.

Once again, not Ridley Scott's Ripley. You can say that, but people generally don't because they don't want to sound stupid. Ripley is not the main, or only element that makes the saga what it is.

Aliens was about jarheads and monsters.

And Alien was about rednecks and a monster.

In Aliens the xenomorph is introduced in ten or twenty minutes. Very early.

I know this has already been falsified, but I think it needs to be shown again to emphasize how ridiculous some (/most) of Stag's argument is.

Aliens is fun, but it is not a real movie. It doesn't have any sort of character (or character development) or plot or anything. It is nothing compared to Alien.

Fanatical opinion. Remember kids, it's not a real movie because he says so.

You might as well compare Armageddon with Solaris. Yeah, both are about space, but which do you think is the better movie?

Holy shhhit. Completely redundant attempt at an argument.

 

[Wooz]

Hey, Paladin Homo is calling someone a "village idiot", and calling people "kids".

This should be amusing.

 

[Paladin Solo]

This should be amusing.

Humor generally is.

Dick.

 

[Wooz]

Your dick is amusing?

 

[Stag]

I would appreciate it if you would forgive me the occasional typo.

Aliens was an action movie-do you disagree? It did not have much suspense-can you disagree? There was some, yes, but it was not a guiding force. Aliens was much more about blowing shit up, not something which is really a bad thing, but which really pulls it from being taken more seriously.

What about Newt? What was reason for that character? To show how matronly Ripley can be? The idea the she survived the alien attacks, and for so long, is completely ridiculous.

Paladin, how can you like the dialogue in Aliens? Do you really like it, or are you just trying to prove a point? It was terrible.

Yes, I will admit that a few of my broader condemnations of Aliens were weak and fueled by a bit of nerd rage, so let me retcon;

Aliens had little character development. It really just boiled down to "Oh no, aliens, I used to be a really tough dude but now I'm scared."

The plot of Aliens was not really important. The idea of Weyland-Yutani being suddenly evil and taking over and all of that was an idea rehashed from Alien and seemed, to me, to be added as an afterthought.

The premise of Aliens seemed to be "lets make some money". It was a drastically different movie, and perhaps inexcusably so. Pardon the analogy, but would you be happy if Fallout were an FPS? I'm fairly certain that there are posts by you in the Fo:BoS section which say that you were not.

 

[Smoke_Jaguar]

I think Stag is the NMA of The Alien Movies.
So rabid and full of weak arguments and stands alone against everyone else pointing that he's full of shit.

 

[Wooz]

You think NMA's full of shit and weak arguments?

 

[Jinroh]

Saying that Aliens is the BoS of the Alien saga is...

Well, I won't even comment it. Instead I'll keep eating pop corn while reading this topic.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Aliens was an action movie-do you disagree? It did not have much suspense-can you disagree? There was some, yes, but it was not a guiding force. Aliens was much more about blowing shit up, not something which is really a bad thing, but which really pulls it from being taken more seriously.

I can agree except for suspense and the last part. You view Aliens in the manner it is not portrayed. It's about a bunch of USCM grunts who have Vietnamesque personalities and are thrown into a world of shit. It's about the first encounter in the war against the xenomorph scum. Things are going to get much worse. Sure, it wasn't AS suspensful as Alien, but it was true to it's form, just with more action. I think it can be taken seriously, and viewed as a cinema classic and masterpiece. I love Alien as well (it's hard to find a good horror movie), but I enjoyed Aliens more.

What about Newt? What was reason for that character? To show how matronly Ripley can be? The idea the she survived the alien attacks, and for so long, is completely ridiculous.

Newt was the portrayal of human innocence against the xenomorph scum. She was the personification of the basic nature to survive. There are stories of improbable survivals all of the time, even historically and prehistorically. Also, later on, she becomes a very important character. I mean, it's kind of redundant to say you don't like the sequel because it introduces new characters.

Paladin, how can you like the dialogue in Aliens? Do you really like it, or are you just trying to prove a point? It was terrible.

I like it because it's authentic. No Homeresque personification, just G.I. jargin.

Aliens had little character development. It really just boiled down to "Oh no, aliens, I used to be a really tough dude but now I'm scared."

Better than a bunch of mindless drones with no emotion. Then again... maybe not? Newt, Hicks, Burke, Hudson, Gorman, Vasquez, Apone, and Bishop developed just fine.

The plot of Aliens was not really important. The idea of Weyland-Yutani being suddenly evil and taking over and all of that was an idea rehashed from Alien and seemed, to me, to be added as an afterthought.

Your theory would have more merit, if Ash wasn't in Alien. Not to mention the fact that you deny all further developments as void because it wasn't in Alien. The U.S. president wasn't a republican during the nineties, but things change.

The premise of Aliens seemed to be "lets make some money". It was a drastically different movie, and perhaps inexcusably so. Pardon the analogy, but would you be happy if Fallout were an FPS? I'm fairly certain that there are posts by you in the Fo:BoS section which say that you were not.

It was only different in plot. Hence the term, sequel. Also, you can't compare a game's sequel to a movie's sequel. They're two very different things. A game requires much more interaction on the user's part. A movie just needs to stay true to whatever source it was taken from and present itself well. Hence, Alien 3 sucks.

Alien and Aliens is more or less about the predator-prey relationship between humans and xenomorphs. Humans have technological superiority, but it doesn't do much good to stem their slaughter. It's about survival on a galactic scale against a menace that's unrelenting and emotionless. It just happened to have a good story to boot. "Look man, I just want to know one thing, where.they.are." later... "Let's get the fuck out of here!" So much for the aura of invincibility. Hence the importance of Hudson.

 

[Stag]

I didn't dislike Aliens for introducing new characters, I just disliked the character of Newt, because she could not have been there in the first place. The movie used her as a device rather than a logical character; her only purpose was to show "another side" of Ripley.

I suppose the dialogue is somewhat realistic, it just annoys me. If I wanted to hear a bunch of idiots talking for a couple hours, I'd go to a football game.

The cyborg plot with Alien was the first one in the series, there was no reason for them to redo it.

 

[Paladin Solo]

I just disliked the character of Newt, because she could not have been there in the first place.

Care to elaborate or provide proof?

The movie used her as a device rather than a logical character; her only purpose was to show "another side" of Ripley.

Ripley's maternal side was hinted at in Alien. Besides, without Newt, not only would you not realise the insignificance in the grunts (other than making a lot of noise and damage) until the end when they're mostly wiped out, mostly, but Ripley and Hudson may not have survived at all. Remember the end when Newt leads them through the maze of air ducts? Anyways, the marines with all their technology didn't make much difference in reducing casualties or rescuing anyone other than Newt. Newt survived on her own by doing what mammals did best during the prehistoric era, hiding, scrounging, and waiting. Alsoplustoo, she is a very important player later on. So she had to be introduced sometime.

I suppose the dialogue is somewhat realistic, it just annoys me. If I wanted to hear a bunch of idiots talking for a couple hours, I'd go to a football game.

You won't get the same emotion and intensity from a football game. Also, they weren't idiots. Most of them are portrayed as being smart enough to possess common sense. Burke was more of an idiot than any of the marines, including Gorman and Hudson. Hell, even the corporate assholes in the beginning were dumber. Not to mention, in Alien, there's plenty of idiotic happenings going on.

The cyborg plot with Alien was the first one in the series, there was no reason for them to redo it.

They didn't redo the plot with Ash/android.

 

[Stag]

Newt's entire family was killed by the aliens. She then spends a long amount of time (I'm not sure how long, I believe it was something like four days) being hungry (making it more likely she would go outside or whatever for food) and being hunted by xenomorphs. She could not have survived. I understand that she is/was a necessary character, but she was an impossibility.

I don't really have any more to say about the dialogue other than that I just didn't like it.

Sorry, not the android plot, but the Weyland-Yutani is evil/crew is expendable plot.