markypants wrote:Are you somehow suggesting that Action movies are not worthy of being considered among the most worthwhile in all movies have to offer? 'cos that's what it sounds like. Let's take your reasoning apart piece by piece shall we? "As for the Aliens being a better film than Alien... Utter Bollocks. Aliens didn't push any genre forward." Firstly, yes it did. The techniques Cameron employed in Aliens - most notably the use of the head mounted cameras for the marines, have been aped and pilfered every since. Not to mention the fact that the principal 'Action Hero' in this movie is a very strong female lead - a complete 'no no' in movies at the time, and in fact still today. Secondly, would you like to explain to me the searingly groundbreaking elements of Alien? Even Scott himself admitted it was a simple monster movie set in space. And being visually stunning though it is, the looks themselves are hardly epoc making now are they? "But Alien is by far the better film, artistically, tonally... " I think you realised you started talking arse here and stopped yourself. Are we talking purely cinematography here? If so you are right - I believe Alien was shot on 70mm, and some of the shots really are a sight to behold. However, to dismiss Aliens' camerawork, lighting, set design completely because the 'rough and ready' style isn't immediately as 'pretty' is mind numbingly blinkered and narrow minded. Cameron created a complete, cohesive and believeable world in which you are immersed from the off. The technical design, lighting, props, makeup, effects and efects are second to none in originality and execution. Compare the sets and props in Alien to those in the sequel for affirmation. Cameron's love for all things mechanical and explosive (big weapons freak) shines through (he started life as a production designer). Above all else, the performances (something that is universally agreed upon) in Aliens are head and shoulders above those in Alien. Weaver's portrayal of Ripley is superlative as opposed to merely functional (as in Alien) - it has a superb ensemble cast with some brilliantly quotable lines and a very strong script with great characterisation. Alien has wooden, stilted performances by contrast - an although this works OK in the context of the movie itself, Alien is NOT reknowned for it's acting for this reason. "Aliens is just a great action film. One of the greatest action films of all time... But in no way or how a 'better' movie that Alien." Firstly I think we agree that comparing the two directly is difficult. However, I do disagree with you - whilst Alien is merely a pretty and compentent horror movie, Aliens is probably one of the best action movies of all time. In the end all I can say for certain is that Aliens is my favourite. But I reckon you should try to open your mind a little more when it comes to evaluating the 'worth' of a movie in the future. Edited by silentbob at 15:23:30 03-11-2005 |
Just watched Batman Begins for the first time.. • Page 4
-
silentbob 29,527 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 19 years ago -
Ecanem 5,039 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 17 years agoI fail to see any reason to compare them at all..
- I think the acting in Alien was very good though - and the characters were a lot more believable and "varied" than in Aliens - simply because they weren't all soldiers.. (well most of them anyway).. Still like I said, why compare them at all, when they're totally different movies and genres?
I agree with Markypants about his analysis of BB.. Its off to a good start with a new series and finally something has been done to erase the utter crap that was the previous Batman movies (the last two in particular) of which Batman from 89 was by far the best. I've just watched the first two movies again the other day and they just don't age very well.. Batman "2" with the penguin is way too theatrical and clumsily narrated.. plus the make-up on Chistopher Walken and co. is just terrible.. -
markypants 2,860 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years agosilentbob wrote:
"As for the Aliens being a better film than Alien... Utter Bollocks. Aliens didn't push any genre forward."
Firstly, yes it did. The techniques Cameron employed in Aliens - most notably the use of the head mounted cameras for the marines, have been aped and pilfered every since. Not to mention the fact that the principal 'Action Hero' in this movie is a very strong female lead - a complete 'no no' in movies at the time, and in fact still today.
OK. Lots to discuss, though I don't think we're in that much disagreement... Pushing technology forward and pushing the genre forward are two very different things.
Alien created the sense of claustrophobia, suspense, and controlled horror that has yet to be bettered IMO. Never before or after (in my recollection) has there been a film to compete with Aliens approach to survival horror. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a discussion about the merits or lack of with Aliens or James Cameron, this about which one is the better movie. And I still stand by the fact that Alien created a sub-genre of Space-survival-Horror. Alien had the strong female lead before Aliens, it had already been established. The design was already set before Aliens. So where Cameron excelled was in taking it further and not trying to compete. Cameron decided to turn his back on the idea of a unstoppable Alien that couldn't be beaten, and turned it into a bug that exploded when shot at. This actually worked out in his favour as it was a totally different spin on Ridley's Alien. Cameron went all out War, military... It was fantastic. Performances, as in acting, I'm not sure If they are better as such. More memorable due to the lines, yes I'd agree, but it was the subtleness of Alien's performances that I think give it the right atmosphere.
"But Alien is by far the better film, artistically, tonally... "
I think you realised you started talking arse here and stopped yourself. Are we talking purely cinematography here? If so you are right - I believe Alien was shot on 70mm, and some of the shots really are a sight to behold. However, to dismiss Aliens' camerawork, lighting, set design completely because the 'rough and ready' style isn't immediately as 'pretty' is mind numbingly blinkered and narrow minded.
I didn't dismiss anything. I'm fighting in your corner as well here! But... Alien was where it all started. The cinematography was and still is breathtakingly beautiful. Cameron's is more functional. It suits his picture, but borrows heavily from the first movie. Remember that it was Alien that introduced the forced claustrophobia, and even Cameron revisited that approach for his most memorable scenes. Alien's still sticks to the feeling of being trapped, elevators, tunnels... And that all came from Alien.
Cameron created a complete, cohesive and believable world in which you are immersed from the off. The technical design, lighting, props, makeup, effects and effects are second to none in originality and execution. Compare the sets and props in Alien to those in the sequel for affirmation. Cameron's love for all things mechanical and explosive (big weapons freak) shines through (he started life as a production designer).
Cameron had a whole movie of exposition to build on. Of course his movie was going to be able to throw you in the deep end. In most cases you don't get a director as good as Cameron attached to a sequel and so they bugger it up, but Cameron used this to his advantage. Set's, props being better in Aliens... Again it's all down to what the story needs to drive it forward. Alien was about simplicity. This was a ship not designed to go to war... Aliens had to have a greater level of technology, guns, steady-cam rifles as that is what the story needed. I don't think this is a sign of a greater movie. I think Alien had a very simple approach, a bit raw and a bit mundane. This just reenforced the fact that these people were not going to survive this. They weren't prepared. It increased the horror. A dark, damp ship has a lot of hiding spaces! Also when you think of things like Bishop in Aliens, the idea of an organic android came from Alien. Cameron put this past characters ground work to excellent use, but he didn't introduce it.
There is a great skill in Alien's on building on the first movie without re-treading too much. But there is a hell of a lot of the groundwork done for him to weave his Alien War movie into.
Above all else, the performances (something that is universally agreed upon) in Aliens are head and shoulders above those in Alien. Weaver's portrayal of Ripley is superlative as opposed to merely functional (as in Alien) - it has a superb ensemble cast with some brilliantly quotable lines and a very strong script with great characterisation. Alien has wooden, stilted performances by contrast - an although this works OK in the context of the movie itself, Alien is NOT renowned for it's acting for this reason.
Characterisation is what it is all about. Alien was one of Ridley's early films and he wasn't well known for his skill with actors... However, in the context (which I know you've mentioned) it works. It is, as I have said, subtle. Alien's characterisation is very cliché, but again it works. Very American, very OTT, very in your face, did I say very American? I love it. Ripley suddenly becomes a female Rambo (paternal instincts kick in) and single handily creates one of the most powerful female action stars in cinema history. So I guess we agree on this point then. Good.
"Aliens is just a great action film. One of the greatest action films of all time... But in no way or how a 'better' movie that Alien."
Firstly I think we agree that comparing the two directly is difficult. However, I do disagree with you - whilst Alien is merely a pretty and competent horror movie, Aliens is probably one of the best action movies of all time.
In the end all I can say for certain is that Aliens is my favourite. But I reckon you should try to open your mind a little more when it comes to evaluating the 'worth' of a movie in the future.
My mind is open here young man! And If you read my post this was all IMO anyway! I love both films, but I was referring to somebody's Alien's is better than Alien 'Fact'. I don't agree it is a fact, and I think it is wrong!
PS - Just re-read one of your earlier posts - couldn't agree with you more aboutthe sound track 'James Horner' did a great job... But... Alien also had a bloody creepy-as-hell soundtrack as well (Jerry RIP)!! Simplicity at it's best... Though to be fair not all that memorable (apart from the trailer music... Still gives me goosebumps!)
Edited by markypants at 18:36:40 03-11-2005 -
markypants 2,860 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years agoCrispyXUK wrote:
The Characters and performances in Alien are much better IMO, I just love the conversation they all have when the are having breakfast after hypersleep, it just seems real.
Anyway this is a Batman thread.gif)
Yes, sorry guys. It is bloody marvelous to get other people as passionate about movies though!! Arguing about Alien & Aliens is like deciding who to shag first Fook-yu or Fook-Mi!!
Back to Batman Begins. Wasn't a huge fan of the score though. Pretty so-so even If it was the great Zimmer who did some of it. Elfman deffinately owned the Batman (89) movie.
M -
gerg 880 posts
Seen 9 years ago
Registered 17 years agoI can't be bothered to read all the thread so I'd just like to say that I prefer Batman Returns to Begins. -
markypants 2,860 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years agoI don't think I could really say which is better. I'd probably go with the 89 Batman as it really shaped how the public see Batman. Without it who knows what direction all comic book adaptations would have taken. I think Batman (89) influences are very far reaching in the superhero genre. People always refer back to the darkness of the 1st Batman... And it took 3 more films for everybody to get what they wanted. -
Ecanem 5,039 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 17 years agoI've said it before but I don't think Batman will ever be as "dark" as I want it to be - at least, not as long as its treated as "blockbuster" material..
- a proper Dark Knight movie with an old Batman would probably stand a better chance of getting a higher (adult) rating and everything that goes with that.. - They should get Frank Miller to co-direct - and if he can hold Robert (style over substance) Rodriguez in check (keep the story going in the right direction and let RR handle the visuals) it could be awesome.. -
markypants 2,860 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years agoEcanem wrote:
I've said it before but I don't think Batman will ever be as "dark" as I want it to be - at least, not as long as its treated as "blockbuster" material..
- a proper Dark Knight movie with an old Batman would probably stand a better chance of getting a higher (adult) rating and everything that goes with that.. - They should get Frank Miller to co-direct - and if he can hold Robert (style over substance) Rodriguez in check (keep the story going in the right direction and let RR handle the visuals) it could be awesome..
There were whispers quite a few years back about them doing a Batman film with 'Clint eastwood' as an old Batman, tired and just about holding it together... Don't remember much more than that though. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 20 years agoRipley took charge in Aliens because she was able to do so. She took charge in Alien because she was the only one left. She had also chosen to put herself at risk in Aliens, confirming her new character of a strong woman willing to take on the hardest tasks for reasons other then pure personal survival. The characters in Alien were all far more personally driven and there was little to no sense of camaraderie. While this makes for a more isolating atmosphere in which to play horror it makes for more boring character interaction and little chance for the actors to display any other emotion then frustration and fear. The characters in Alien started off disliking each other and died disliking each other. In Aliens there’s more character development during the breakfast scene then is stuffed into all of Ridley’s film.
Alien created the space survival horror sub genre. Aliens created the tooled-up good guys get wiped out by weird-ass bad guys sub-genre which spread to influence all kinds of different movies.
The most noticeable technical innovation for Alien was the use of vector computer graphics, a first in movies, iirc. Aliens employed a vast array of technical innovations, from pov shots to very early CGI use. Not to mention some superb SFX.
More importantly the production design grounded the viewer in a believable world – in the past all sci-fi was obsessed with creating something that looked otherworldly and therefore fantastical to viewing audiences. The production design in Alien is a perfect example of this, most especially in the space ships in the film – (Nostromo go boom when entering atmosphere – end of film). The sets in Alien worked well in helping to create fear but failed in trying to portray a believable universe. Aliens nailed both on the head at the same time.
.
BTW, I’d say there’s a lot more exposition in Aliens then in number one. We know fuck all about anything from start to finish in the first film. The only exposition comes during the Mother scene and Ash’s interrogation. Compare this to the first 30 minutes of Aliens, which is all exposition, character introductions and fleshing out of the universe in which the action is about to take place.
Batman? Bring back Mr Freeze
-
markypants 2,860 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years agoKhanivor wrote:
Ripley took charge in Aliens because she was able to do so. She took charge in Alien because she was the only one left. She had also chosen to put herself at risk in Aliens, confirming her new character of a strong woman willing to take on the hardest tasks for reasons other then pure personal survival. The characters in Alien were all far more personally driven and there was little to no sense of camaraderie. While this makes for a more isolating atmosphere in which to play horror it makes for more boring character interaction and little chance for the actors to display any other emotion then frustration and fear. The characters in Alien started off disliking each other and died disliking each other. In Aliens there’s more character development during the breakfast scene then is stuffed into all of Ridley’s film.
Alien created the space survival horror sub genre. Aliens created the tooled-up good guys get wiped out by weird-ass bad guys sub-genre which spread to influence all kinds of different movies.
The most noticeable technical innovation for Alien was the use of vector computer graphics, a first in movies, iirc. Aliens employed a vast array of technical innovations, from pov shots to very early CGI use. Not to mention some superb SFX.
More importantly the production design grounded the viewer in a believable world – in the past all sci-fi was obsessed with creating something that looked otherworldly and therefore fantastical to viewing audiences. The production design in Alien is a perfect example of this, most especially in the space ships in the film – (Nostromo go boom when entering atmosphere – end of film). The sets in Alien worked well in helping to create fear but failed in trying to portray a believable universe. Aliens nailed both on the head at the same time.
.
BTW, I’d say there’s a lot more exposition in Aliens then in number one. We know fuck all about anything from start to finish in the first film. The only exposition comes during the Mother scene and Ash’s interrogation. Compare this to the first 30 minutes of Aliens, which is all exposition, character introductions and fleshing out of the universe in which the action is about to take place.
Batman? Bring back Mr Freeze
Great post. I can't really disagree with any of it... Though I don't think that Alien failed to create a believable universe. The small world that Alien did create worked perfectly, and once again fulfilled it's purpose. No need to be complicated. Just keep it simple, as simple serves the story better.
And by exposition I meant that we already knew there are Aliens, they will kill you, they have acid for blood, nobody gets out alive... That has been dealt with in Alien. Yes we gain knowledge in Aliens (especially in the special edition), but a lot of work had alreadys been done to set up that picture.
Anyway, once again, I love both films. I just love Alien that little bit more. -
pistol 13,018 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 19 years agoI heard that Michael Keaton could be in line to play a baddie in the next Batman film. I'm sure he'd do a great job but how weird would that be? -
bivith 2,469 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 17 years agoDerblington wrote:
rhythm wrote:
It may be bizarre, but that doesn't make it untrue. In the Alien series Aliens is considered the best movie.
Most bizarre post ever! You've just compared a horror film to an action one - that's about as relevant as comparing The Thing to The Long Kiss Goodnight. Neither's "better" than the other.
Alien is the best in the series -
bivith 2,469 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 17 years agoMr Sleep wrote:
silentbob wrote:
Erm, I have to disagree about the Aliens thing, as I have many times. It's just not even close to the original, it's a brainless action movie that's all macho bullshit. It's also got an annoying child in it (ruins any movie imo).
If you read what he says literally, it is actually true. Aliens and Returns are widely thought of more favourable amongst my friends at least. I still maintain that the first Batman was piss poor anyway, 'Returns' is great fun.
The extended version does go some way to improving it but it's still very very flawed. It's a fun pop corn movie but I really don't understand people's insistence that it's better than the original.
What he said, although for me the extended version is even worse.
I own Aliens, I've watched it several times, but it's a deeply flawed film, and for me, quite dull, and I've never understood the accolades. And I hate, hate, hate the marine characters and their dialogue. Alien OTOH is a masterpiece. -
silentbob 29,527 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 19 years agomarkypants - I spent ages at work typing a detailed response at work, and then ptromptly shut my machine down without posting it. Arrrgh!
Can't be arsed to re-type it all to here is a quick summary:
- Agreed a bit, disagreed a bit. Came to the conslusion that we both love the movies so who really gives a monkeys which one is best.
..but a lot more long winded.
-
bivith 2,469 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 17 years agomarkypants wrote:
Cameron decided to turn his back on the idea of a unstoppable Alien that couldn't be beaten, and turned it into a bug that exploded when shot at.
You see, this is actually my major problem with Aliens. After Alien set up the alien as this near unkillable biological weapon, Aliens came along and neutered the poor bugger. Watching Alien again after Aliens, requires you to forget all the continuity problems thrown up by Aliens. -
markypants 2,860 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years agosilentbob wrote:
markypants - I spent ages at work typing a detailed response at work, and then ptromptly shut my machine down without posting it. Arrrgh!
Can't be arsed to re-type it all to here is a quick summary:
- Agreed a bit, disagreed a bit. Came to the conslusion that we both love the movies so who really gives a monkeys which one is best.
..but a lot more long winded.
Hear hear... Such sun was our debate, that I watched both movies back to back last night. And they are both brill... But Alien is better -
silentbob 29,527 posts
Seen 1 year ago
Registered 19 years agobivith wrote:
Hang on, it was only unstoppable because of the tools and weapons available to the crew of the Nostromo. It was a mining frigate - and therefore had no weapons to speak of.
markypants wrote:
Cameron decided to turn his back on the idea of a unstoppable Alien that couldn't be beaten, and turned it into a bug that exploded when shot at.
You see, this is actually my major problem with Aliens. After Alien set up the alien as this near unkillable biological weapon, Aliens came along and neutered the poor bugger. Watching Alien again after Aliens, requires you to forget all the continuity problems thrown up by Aliens.
I'm not sure why everyone thinks that the aliens are completely unbeatable - I never thought that, just needs the right tools. Or as Hudson would say:
"..sonic, electronic BALLbreakers.."
IMO the 'overwhelming' numbers in Aliens replaced the idea you describe - in that no matter how many guns you have the fuckers will keep coming anyway. -
tengu 10,294 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 18 years ago -
tengu 10,294 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 18 years ago -
tengu 10,294 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 18 years ago -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
