The ALIEN franchise.

I'll just start this one off with simple ranking.

ALIEN
ALIENS
ALIEN³
PROMETHEUS
*big chasm*
ALIEN RESURRECTION
*big I don't give a fuck*
AVPR films.


As I said elsewhere, I enjoy the trilogy almost equally as a whole. AR is fun in a stupid Saturday morning cartoon kind of way. I only saw parts of AVP and it didn't do anything for me. AVPR looks a lot worse and from what I've heard sounds extremely distasteful, even for me.

James Stocks wrote:Haven't heard of that "out of character" part. Interesting. I've seen her in interviews about not wanting to rehash the first two, and it wasn't until the idea came of killing off Ripley that Weaver became more than interested because it gave Ripley a new angle to work with and no doubt she was pleased with the film centering on her and less on the alien (note that some of the drafts over the years didn't even include her given Weaver's reluctance). But I think it's much better that they didn't go straight back into combat territory because I don't think it could ever have been done as good as it was in ALIENS. Earth doesn't sound like it would work simply because the humans would not only have the numbers but also the means of wiping out the aliens with ease. Human characters were often either outnumbered or under-gunned and that's what kept the suspense.

You mean the same way we should be able to wipe out zombies with ease, and yet there are comic books, movies and TV shows about them wrecking shit good?

Sorry, but the natural progression was for the Aliens to FINALLY make it to Earth. 'Alien 3' took two steps backwards after the bad-assery that was 'Aliens'.

And not in a good way.

As for Newt and Hicks. Newt annoyed me so good riddance. I really don't get why Hicks has fans, of all the marines in Cameron's flick I found him to bethe least interesting and most bland of them all, nothing more than a one note soldier boy. So it's no loss to me that he didn't make it (I do find it amusing that Hicks gets killed because he was "impaled by that safety support", it screams Fincher's dark humor). Plus, Charles Dance as Clemons was a hundred times more interesting as a companion for Ripley than Hicks would have ever been in my opinion, notably because they're both outcasts of sorts. I do wish he lasted a bit longer, but at least other guys like Ralph Brown and Charles Dutton managed to keep things nicely as far as supporting characters go. I have no idea where Newt and Hicks would fit into all this, but I'm not missing them. It was nice Bishop had a better end, I really like they scene with him and Ripley having a brief reunion, "it's very dark here Ripely".

How could Hicks NOT fit in? He would be just another unarmed male running around the prison trying to kill the Alien. Only difference is, he has an emotional attachment to the main character.

And he was popular because he was Michael Effin' Biehn. The guy NEVER disappoints, and has been in some pretty epic franchises. 'Aliens'. 'Terminator'. 'Tombstone'. 'The Rock'. He deserved a much better career than he ended up with.

Speaking of Fincher, I can't blame him about being bitter of that experience. Despite all the shit that happened in production, I think he managed to make something worthwhile and I can't think of a better way of ending Ripley's story. I also really like score by fellow Bat-composer Elliot Goldenthal, it's probably his best work (and it's used in BATMAN: DEAD END, ironically!).

I can. And I wouldn't even have to be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it either.

Honestly though, I enjoy the Alien trilogy (emphasis on "trilogy") altogether almost equally for different reasons. For a long time I ranked 3 way higher than Cameron's effort, but all three are now pretty close after having watched them on the blu-ray set.

Dude, you seriously blow my mind with some of the things you say.

Oh, as for ALIEN RESURRECTION? A total waste and the most inconsequential of the films (I never bothered with the AVP films btw), but I do admit it's entertaining in a Saturday morning cartoon kind of variety. In the late 90s I thought it was pretty generic and did not see again until many years later and when I finally did it was a shock because after being very familiar with FIREFLY and SERENITY, AR came off like a weird pilot episode with a different cast. All the Whedon-isms were there, including everyone referring to the spaceship as "this boat".

'Resurrection' had a great group of characters in a shitty film. Stick those same characters into 'Aliens', and I guarantee people love it almost as much as the original.

EDIT: Fuck, I didn't expect to go on like that. If there's to be more ALIEN discussion, let's start a new thread and let this one focus on that Bat guy.

I agree, which is why I responded here, instead of there.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Dude, you seriously blow my mind with some of the things you say.

I'll take that as a complement. I'll admit to having a very unconventional opinion on a lot of things that go against the majority opinions and my stance on ALIEN 3 certainly is one of the more extreme ones. But I have my reasons and it's fine if not everyone agrees with them. That's what makes these discussions worthwhile.

James Stocks wrote:I'll take that as a complement. I'll admit to having a very unconventional opinion on a lot of things that go against the majority opinions and my stance on ALIEN 3 certainly is one of the more extreme ones. But I have my reasons and it's fine if not everyone agrees with them. That's what makes these discussions worthwhile.

You seriously can't ignore everything else I posted?

Don't be a thread killer, we have too many of those as it is...

I thought already addressed plenty enough on where I stand, but I'll oblige.

Apologist Puncher wrote:You mean the same way we should be able to wipe out zombies with ease, and yet there are comic books, movies and TV shows about them wrecking shit good?

Sorry, but the natural progression was for the Aliens to FINALLY make it to Earth. 'Alien 3' took two steps backwards after the bad-assery that was 'Aliens'.

And not in a good way.

That's assuming a great majority of people die on the planet like in those zombie movies. But again, I don't think they could have bettered ALIENS by going that route. That already works pretty close to the zombie genre with the group being cornered by a whole colony of aliens, having their own conflicts with eachother and such.

How could Hicks NOT fit in? He would be just another unarmed male running around the prison trying to kill the Alien. Only difference is, he has an emotional attachment to the main character.

I honestly never believed in that emotional attachment, which is why I always stick to the theatrical cut instead. And as I said earlier, I find Clemon's to be a much more interesting companion for Ripley.

And he was popular because he was Michael Effin' Biehn. The guy NEVER disappoints, and has been in some pretty epic franchises. 'Aliens'. 'Terminator'. 'Tombstone'. 'The Rock'. He deserved a much better career than he ended up with.

You make a point of his popularity, but I'll take Charles Dance over him any day.

'Resurrection' had a great group of characters in a shitty film. Stick those same characters into 'Aliens', and I guarantee people love it almost as much as the original.

I can see that.


Anyway, I mentioned my preference of the ALIENS theatrical cut, so I suppose I should for the rest given that they all have different versions.

ALIEN (theatrical) - 2003 cut was the most pointless project ever, even Ridley Scott admitted FOX only wanted it for marketing purposes
ALIENS (theatrical) - 1990 special edition has a lot of unnecessary additions that only kill the pace and ruin the suspense (like seeing LV-426 before Ripley does)
ALIEN³ (assembly cut) - I can barely watch the theatrical cut because so much feels missing and the ending with the alien popping out ruins the whole point of Ripley's choice.
ALIEN RESSURECTION (theatrical) - Same as the first, even the director of this movie dismisses the 2003 cut.

Anyone bet there will be an extended cut of PROMETHEUS? As much as I enjoyed it, it felt like chunks were missing.

James Stocks wrote:I thought already addressed plenty enough on where I stand, but I'll oblige.

The whole point of debating is to...debate?

Apologist Puncher wrote:That's assuming a great majority of people die on the planet like in those zombie movies. But again, I don't think they could have bettered ALIENS by going that route. That already works pretty close to the zombie genre with the group being cornered by a whole colony of aliens, having their own conflicts with eachother and such.

Of course they could have.

I mean, what's the worst that could happen? They could make a dull, lifeless film about a prison planet with no weapons, not even riot gear!, where a dog/yak Alien is loose and trying to kill everyone. Instead of protecting the Queen it had to know was in Ripley.

Nope, seeing an Alien/CM war film would have turned EVERYONE off. Luckily they chose to make the film they did, 'eh?

I honestly never believed in that emotional attachment, which is why I always stick to the theatrical cut instead. And as I said earlier, I find Clemon's to be a much more interesting companion for Ripley.

The fact that they survived what they did together formed said attachment, which was the whole point of the Bishop scene. Beyond exposition to explain what happened.

You make a point of his popularity, but I'll take Charles Dance over him any day.

Watch his Johnny Ringo in 'Tombstone' and get back to me.

Anyone bet there will be an extended cut of PROMETHEUS? As much as I enjoyed it, it felt like chunks were missing.

Apparently there is almost an hours worth of deleted scenes, so I wager you are correct.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Of course they could have.

I mean, what's the worst that could happen? They could make a dull, lifeless film about a prison planet with no weapons, not even riot gear!, where a dog/yak Alien is loose and trying to kill everyone. Instead of protecting the Queen it had to know was in Ripley.

Nope, seeing an Alien/CM war film would have turned EVERYONE off. Luckily they chose to make the film they did, 'eh?

For me, luckily they did. I know an nihilistic introspective psychological thriller wasn't exactly what a lot of fans were expecting after something like ALIENS, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and admire that they had the balls to go in that direction. You say dull and lifeless, I call it compelling. And yeah, I think they could have done far worse.

The fact that they survived what they did together formed said attachment, which was the whole point of the Bishop scene. Beyond exposition to explain what happened.

Yet you'd (okay, "I'll") lose the aspect of Ripley being a loner, which is something I agree with Weaver that the character works better that way and that it would be less challenging if she had Hicks around to back up her claims of an alien.

Watch his Johnny Ringo in 'Tombstone' and get back to me.

I'll be fair. I don't doubt Biehn, but I thought Hicks was one of the least interesting characters he ever played, so I'm not really missing him much in 3.

It wasn't perfect and technically a step down from the first two but ultimately I found the it to be an overall satisfying conclusion to Ripley's story.

James Stocks wrote:For me, luckily they did. I know an nihilistic introspective psychological thriller wasn't exactly what a lot of fans were expecting after something like ALIENS, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and admire that they had the balls to go in that direction. You say dull and lifeless, I call it compelling. And yeah, I think they could have done far worse.

Don't be going all "Apologist" on me now. There was nothing "thrilling" or "psychological" about 'Alien 3'.

And nope, they made the worst 'Alien 3' they could have.

Yet you'd (okay, "I'll") lose the aspect of Ripley being a loner, which is something I agree with Weaver that the character works better that way and that it would be less challenging if she had Hicks around to back up her claims of an alien.

Uh, I must have missed something:

When was Ellen Ripley EVER a "loner'??

'Alien' Part of the Nostromo crew containing: Captain Dallas, Executive Officer Kane, Navigator Lambert, Warrant Officer Ripley , Science Officer Ash, and Engineers Brett and Parker.

'Aliens' Ellen Ripley is revealed to be a mother. Joins a crew consisting of: Sergeant Apone, Corporal Hicks, Privates Vasquez and Hudson, and the android Bishop. Also Carter Burke and little Newt.

Loner? Not hardly.

I'll be fair. I don't doubt Biehn, but I thought Hicks was one of the least interesting characters he ever played, so I'm not really missing him much in 3.

The movie is even poorer without him.

It wasn't perfect and technically a step down from the first two but ultimately I found the it to be an overall satisfying conclusion to Ripley's story.

Fortunately, many more people disagree. And they voted with their wallets.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Don't be going all "Apologist" on me now. There was nothing "thrilling" or "psychological" about 'Alien 3'.

And nope, they made the worst 'Alien 3' they could have.

Didn't mean to come off "apologist". I don't even feel it's necessary for me to apologize for liking something I like. From what I've seen, most apologists try to impose their own opinions onto others, trying to make them "join the other side" or lack of a better phrase, insult those who don't share their view. Not me. Anyone can like or dislike whatever as far as I'm concerned. I don't try to impose my opinions like so many dolts on the internet, instead I just express them.

Uh, I must have missed something:

When was Ellen Ripley EVER a "loner'??

'Alien' Part of the Nostromo crew containing: Captain Dallas, Executive Officer Kane, Navigator Lambert, Warrant Officer Ripley , Science Officer Ash, and Engineers Brett and Parker.

'Aliens' Ellen Ripley is revealed to be a mother. Joins a crew consisting of: Sergeant Apone, Corporal Hicks, Privates Vasquez and Hudson, and the android Bishop. Also Carter Burke and little Newt.

Loner? Not hardly.

I don't mean loner in the literal sense, but more like an outsider of the groups. A recurring aspect in the first three films is Ripley being an outsider in some fashion (it's also in the fourth, but obviously in an extremely different concept). In the first film she's at odds with the whole crew on various levels. Nobody really respects her. When she tries to do things by the book she's shoved aside by her captain and peers. Stuff like when she finally assumes command after Dallas dies she literally has to yell at Parker when he's disregarding her authority.

During the first hour of 'Aliens' nobody takes her seriously. She's dismissed by the company, mocked by marines. And just like in the first film it's not until later (when it's almost too late) that they all start to wise up and follow her lead, whether they make it out alive or not. As for the revelation of her being a mother, I never believed in that as it doesn't really gel with the first film, hence why I only consider the theatrical cut canon. Giving her a dead daughter to explain her maternal instincts is completely unnecessary. She doesn't need that baggage, it works perfectly fine that she'd find those instincts from within when she starts to look after Newt.

I'll be fair. I don't doubt Biehn, but I thought Hicks was one of the least interesting characters he ever played, so I'm not really missing him much in 3.

The movie is even poorer without him.

I think it's just fine without him.

It wasn't perfect and technically a step down from the first two but ultimately I found the it to be an overall satisfying conclusion to Ripley's story.

Fortunately, many more people disagree. And they voted with their wallets.

And you know what I say to that? Good for them.

James Stocks wrote:Didn't mean to come off "apologist". I don't even feel it's necessary for me to apologize for liking something I like. From what I've seen, most apologists try to impose their own opinions onto others, trying to make them "join the other side" or lack of a better phrase, insult those who don't share their view. Not me. Anyone can like or dislike whatever as far as I'm concerned. I don't try to impose my opinions like so many dolts on the internet, instead I just express them.

Apologists like to claim that Singerman was some "cerebral" film, that those of us who dislike it aren't "capable" of comprehending. We just wanted "axion n stuf blowed up".

Which, of course, was bullshit.

I don't mean loner in the literal sense, but more like an outsider of the groups. A recurring aspect in the first three films is Ripley being an outsider in some fashion (it's also in the fourth, but obviously in an extremely different concept). In the first film she's at odds with the whole crew on various levels. Nobody really respects her. When she tries to do things by the book she's shoved aside by her captain and peers. Stuff like when she finally assumes command after Dallas dies she literally has to yell at Parker when he's disregarding her authority.

Still, doesn't make her a "loner" in ANY sense. Which is what you said:

James Stocks wrote:Yet you'd (okay, "I'll") lose the aspect of Ripley being a loner, which is something I agree with Weaver that the character works better that way and that it would be less challenging if she had Hicks around to back up her claims of an alien.

And as I showed, she never once was a "loner".

During the first hour of 'Aliens' nobody takes her seriously. She's dismissed by the company, mocked by marines. And just like in the first film it's not until later (when it's almost too late) that they all start to wise up and follow her lead, whether they make it out alive or not. As for the revelation of her being a mother, I never believed in that as it doesn't really gel with the first film, hence why I only consider the theatrical cut canon. Giving her a dead daughter to explain her maternal instincts is completely unnecessary. She doesn't need that baggage, it works perfectly fine that she'd find those instincts from within when she starts to look after Newt.

The difference is, 'Alien 3' forced her to be alone. The one and only time she truly was alone was at the end of 'Alien'. And even then, it was for a very short time. In fact, if 'Alien 3' had played up the "Woman out of time" aspect, it would have made more sense.

But they didn't.

I think it's just fine without him.

Well, yeah. But you are a little....odd, when it comes to films.

And you know what I say to that? Good for them.

Ah yes, in the face of truth, sarcasm.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:Didn't mean to come off "apologist". I don't even feel it's necessary for me to apologize for liking something I like. From what I've seen, most apologists try to impose their own opinions onto others, trying to make them "join the other side" or lack of a better phrase, insult those who don't share their view. Not me. Anyone can like or dislike whatever as far as I'm concerned. I don't try to impose my opinions like so many dolts on the internet, instead I just express them.

Apologists like to claim that Singerman was some "cerebral" film, that those of us who dislike it aren't "capable" of comprehending. We just wanted "axion n stuf blowed up".

Which, of course, was bullshit.

I agree.

I don't mean loner in the literal sense, but more like an outsider of the groups. A recurring aspect in the first three films is Ripley being an outsider in some fashion (it's also in the fourth, but obviously in an extremely different concept). In the first film she's at odds with the whole crew on various levels. Nobody really respects her. When she tries to do things by the book she's shoved aside by her captain and peers. Stuff like when she finally assumes command after Dallas dies she literally has to yell at Parker when he's disregarding her authority.

Still, doesn't make her a "loner" in ANY sense. Which is what you said:

James Stocks wrote:Yet you'd (okay, "I'll") lose the aspect of Ripley being a loner, which is something I agree with Weaver that the character works better that way and that it would be less challenging if she had Hicks around to back up her claims of an alien.

And as I showed, she never once was a "loner".

During the first hour of 'Aliens' nobody takes her seriously. She's dismissed by the company, mocked by marines. And just like in the first film it's not until later (when it's almost too late) that they all start to wise up and follow her lead, whether they make it out alive or not. As for the revelation of her being a mother, I never believed in that as it doesn't really gel with the first film, hence why I only consider the theatrical cut canon. Giving her a dead daughter to explain her maternal instincts is completely unnecessary. She doesn't need that baggage, it works perfectly fine that she'd find those instincts from within when she starts to look after Newt.

The difference is, 'Alien 3' forced her to be alone. The one and only time she truly was alone was at the end of 'Alien'. And even then, it was for a very short time. In fact, if 'Alien 3' had played up the "Woman out of time" aspect, it would have made more sense.

But they didn't.

As I said earlier, "I don't mean loner in the literal sense, but more like an outsider of the groups." I'll admit "loner" is a poor choice of word.

And you know what I say to that? Good for them.

Ah yes, in the face of truth, sarcasm.

Honestly, I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm perfectly fine with a majority not sharing my opinion on stuff. I go by a "live and let live" deal when it comes to movies. That's the difference between guys like me and apologists who persist on riding their high horse. I couldn't be any more humble and sincere.

James Stocks wrote:As I said earlier, "I don't mean loner in the literal sense, but more like an outsider of the groups." I'll admit "loner" is a poor choice of word.

Either way, that's not who her character has ever been.

Honestly, I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm perfectly fine with a majority not sharing my opinion on stuff. I go by a "live and let live" deal when it comes to movies. That's the difference between guys like me and apologists who persist on riding their high horse. I couldn't be any more humble and sincere.

I like a lot of things people either don't like, are afraid to admit they like, or are ignorant about it because of cultural bias/media fallacies. And if someone else doesn't like it, it doesn't really bother me. But if something is just so frustratingly wrong-headed, I just can't see what the minority who like it do. I just can't.

'Alien 3' is the 2nd worst 'Alien' film ever made. I'm not counting the 'Vs.' films either. It should have been something bigger, and instead it was a drawn-out snooze.

Hopefully they decide to make an 'Alien War' film set on Earth, and give the fans of the series the movie they have been waiting for. Something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Hive

Maybe they will. PROMETHEUS has been the most successful of the series since Cameron's film so maybe once Scott is finished with his follow up they might go that route you suggest. During the 1990s, many drafts got rejected because they proved to be too expensive at the time. With technology having gone so far since then it's more than possible, even for an R rated film.