The "Alien" Film Saga

[Snowman37]

In light of Prometheus coming out this summer, how about we reminisce over the Alien films? There's been six films so far: Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection, Alien vs. Predator, and Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem. From the main series, I enjoyed all but the third film. I don't bother with it unless I'm watching the series from Alien to Resurrection. I liked the first AVP despite the harsh criticism. It was only AVP:R that I had issue with, mostly in regards to a lack of plot and the lighting being far too dark to the point where you can't see anything. Turn up the TV's brightness, and you can see everything, but come on... who screwed that up? It strikes me as a DVD issue. Did anyone see the movie at the theater? Did it look too dark there as well? Now we come to Prometheus, an alternate prequel to the AVP films. This time, a proper prequel from the mind of Ridley Scott, director of the original Alien.

Which was your favorite film? Are there any you outright dislike?

[DigiFluid]

Mapp started a thread for this ages ago...guess it doesn't get much traffic without anything proper "Alien" in production though.

[DigiFluid]

But, regardless of whether or not any merging happens...

Alien is and always was brilliant. Just classic Scott, the dread and horror are palpable and made so almost entirely on the peculiarities of his directing and pacing styles.

Aliens is such a totally different animal that they're almost hard to compare. But it's one of the best sequels of all time obviously, and is one of those exceedingly rare few that may even be better than the original.

I think Alien 3 really gets an unfair rap, personally. No, it's not as good as the first two, but I really don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be. In fact, I think it's a pretty solid film in its own right.

Resurrection was garbage, fullstop.

And in my world, the AvP movies don't have anything to do with the Alien franchise.

[Snowman37]

Mapp started a thread for this ages ago...guess it doesn't get much traffic without anything proper "Alien" in production though.

I don't post in dead discussions, especially those from six years ago.

Alien is and always was brilliant. Just classic Scott, the dread and horror are palpable and made so almost entirely on the peculiarities of his directing and pacing styles.

What made the movie was focusing on the characters over cheap scares. When something did happen, it was actually scary. Today's ADD horror flicks are just stupid. Everything happens every five minutes to where nothing's scary, and all we get is twitchy ghosts and loud noises. Really, how is any of that scary?

Aliens is such a totally different animal that they're almost hard to compare. But it's one of the best sequels of all time obviously, and is one of those exceedingly rare few that may even be better than the original.

I'll agree with you, except where you say they're hard to compare. They're both horror films, but the sequel has more of an action-vibe to it where as the original had more of a haunted-house vibe.

I think Alien 3 really gets an unfair rap, personally. No, it's not as good as the first two, but I really don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be. In fact, I think it's a pretty solid film in its own right.

The opening scene killed off Hicks, Newt, and Bishop; and landed Ripley on a prison planet. That killed the movie. What did you like about it? For me, what saved the movie was Ripley having an alien queen inside her and having to sacrifice herself to keep it out of Weyland-Yutani's hands.

Resurrection was garbage, fullstop.

Care to tell us why? It was leaps and bounds better than Alien 3.

And in my world, the AvP movies don't have anything to do with the Alien franchise.

Except that they do...

[kitkat3ny]

Strangely enough, I hate Alien 3 and loved Alien Resurrection. I appreciated the evolution in the story.

[DigiFluid]

The opening scene killed off Hicks, Newt, and Bishop; and landed Ripley on a prison planet. That killed the movie.

Not remotely. As was proven in the previous movie, having cast members survive is not required to make a good movie. Alien 3 was well-directed, the sets and cinematography were engaging, and the new cast of characters were engaging and dramatically different than those of the previous movie--as had been the case in the transition from 1 to 2.

Care to tell us why? It was leaps and bounds better than Alien 3.

It really wasn't. Resurrection was just soul-crushingly bad in every way and at every level. The directing was terrible, the acting (from a reasonably talented group of actors!) was horrendous, the set design was uninspired and derivative, and the story was just so completely bloody absurd and frequently erring into downright stupid that the entire thing is unwatchable. I'd watch 3 a thousand times before ever suffering through this turd again.

Except that they do...

Meh. Not if you don't want them to, they don't. Just because it carries the brand name doesn't mean you have to take it at face value--heck, the man who started the franchise certainly isn't.

[Snowman37]

Not remotely. As was proven in the previous movie, having cast members survive is not required to make a good movie. Alien 3 was well-directed, the sets and cinematography were engaging, and the new cast of characters were engaging and dramatically different than those of the previous movie--as had been the case in the transition from 1 to 2.

True, about the cast. Each Predator sequel has introduced a whole new cast of characters. The frustration with Alien 3 is that the opening scene totally undermined all of Ripley's efforts to save Newt during the last half hour of Aliens. Alien 3 would have been far more receptive, I think, had they not killed off the survivors (minus Ripley) in the opening scene. As for directing, sets, cinematography, new characters, engaging drama... none of that really matters to me, because they'd already lost me with the opening scene. If Ripley hadn't been in the movie, I wouldn't have bothered seeing it.

It really wasn't. Resurrection was just soul-crushingly bad in every way and at every level. The directing was terrible, the acting (from a reasonably talented group of actors!) was horrendous, the set design was uninspired and derivative, and the story was just so completely bloody absurd and frequently erring into downright stupid that the entire thing is unwatchable. I'd watch 3 a thousand times before ever suffering through this turd again.

Soul-crushingly bad, terrible, horrendous, uninspired, derivative, absurd, stupid, un-watchable, and turd. You throw around a lot of words, but you didn't really articulate why you dislike the film. Why was the film bad? What was bad about the directing? What was wrong with the acting? Granted, this ties back to the directing. What did you dislike about the sets? What was wrong with the story? You found a longer way to say Resurrection was garbage, but you still haven't answered the proposed question: why?

Meh. Not if you don't want them to, they don't. Just because it carries the brand name doesn't mean you have to take it at face value--heck, the man who started the franchise certainly isn't.

Opinion is irrelevant. The studio promoted and endorsed Alien vs. Predator as both an Alien and a Predator movie. The movie met heavy criticism, but it made a lot of money, so the studio fast tracked a sequel. That one was such a financial disaster, the studio decided to distance itself from it with separate films: Predators and Prometheus. As far as I know, Ridley Scott hasn't said that AVP 1&2 weren't Alien movies. Rather, he is simply ignoring them as they contradict what he envisioned as the origin of the Alien.